Walter Bright, el  7 de October a las 17:18 me escribiste:
> On 10/7/2014 3:27 PM, Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> >Walter Bright, el  7 de October a las 13:06 me escribiste:
> >>On 10/6/2014 9:51 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>Thank you. This is great progress!
> >>
> >>I understand the caveats, but can this be put into a shape where it
> >>can be pulled despite being a work in progress? I.e. have the code
> >>be disabled by default? That will help encourage the community to
> >>help out with the gaps.
> >
> >Yes, I think that's the best approach too. Ideally this should be
> >configurable at runtime as Marting suggested, so ANYONE can try it with
> >their applications by just running it like this:
> >D_GC=concurrent=1 ./myapp
> >
> >Then bugs can be filled more easily and people can work on fixing them
> >more easily too. At some point I'd like to see the current GC and the
> >concurrent GC merged, the concurrent GC already support disabling the
> >concurrency. Both GCs diverged with time and both have (different)
> >improvements over the common parent, and it will be a shame to lose any
> >of them.
> >
> That's a good idea, but I hate environment variables affecting all D
> executables. They always wind up being inadvertently being left on,
> or off, or set for some unrelated purpose. It also would affect all
> D executables on the system, potentially making a big mess.

I think this is an unjustified fear, there are already many environment
variables that can affect your program. That's why they are called...
environment variables :)

Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)           
- Mire, don Inodoro! Una paloma con un anillo en la pata! Debe ser
  mensajera y cayó aquí!
- Y... si no es mensajera es coqueta... o casada.
        -- Mendieta e Inodoro Pereyra

Reply via email to