On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: >> More generally, there are NO safe programming languages that support >> explicit deallocation. GC is the price of eliminating memory safety >> errors. > > Well, although I agree with the thrust of your argument, technically, > E is both memory safe and supports explicit termination/deallocation > of vats.
MarkM: it does not assist the discussion to confuse the issue by conflating two distinct levels of abstraction. Operations at the VAT level occur outside of the E language level. Your statement is not a counter-example. However, my statement does need revision, because there are some newer explicit allocators that are type safe but not "liveness safe". I'm thinking of the ones that use type-partitioned heaps. shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
