On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:02:27 -0400, Raymond Toy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry for the slow response. The fact that no one has responded > probably means that they're away, are busy hacking on something else > like dynamic-extents, or, like myself, don't know the answer. :-) Hehe. No, apologies for me making noise. Of course I'm aware of the fact that I cannot expect anyone to hurry to answer my questions. I just saw the amount of traffic on cmucl-imp and though "damn, none of them seems to read cmucl-help"... :) Gerd Moellmann just pointed out to me that 18e on x86 (which I'm using) doesn't have weak hash tables at all. I could have checked that myself but I was just looking at the docstring and thought it was there. So, again, sorry for the noise. I'll be waiting for CMUCL 19... > I don't know if what you say will work or not. As another option, > how about using finalizers? When the object goes away, have the > finalizer remove the entry from the other hash table. Good idea, I'll try that. Thanks, Edi.
