Excerpts from Luite Stegeman's message of 2014-05-23 17:11:30 -0700: > Actually it's not the same, since I think the finalizer should still be run > if the weak pointer object is unreachable (and it should run when the key > becomes unreachable).
I think that's a legitimate point in the design space. > I haven't been able to think of any issues with considering the value > unreachable here, so I'm still puzzled as to why GHC's semantics would be > preferable. It doesn't look like it would complicate implementation too > much either. I'm not sure either. Perhaps Simon can comment? Edward _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
