Remi Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hm, I'm not sure about the "should". Garbage collection is meant
> for memory, and anything making that less clear makes people
> more likely to depend on incorrect assumptions.
> And redefining GC to be a collection of _all_ garbage, instead of
> just memory doesn't sound so fantastic either.
I would not be surprised if relying on GC to close open files would
be generally considered kosher in a few years - in cases when it has
little visible effects outside, i.e. excluding network connections,
but including reading configuration files.
All which is needed is that the OS doesn't run out of system-wide
resources when only a given process opens many files; and that the
language implementation can actually force a garbage collection and
run finalizers of file objects immediately in the rare case when the
limit of per-process descriptors is reached.
Well, this has some impact on mixing languages, because when a module
implemented in one language runs out of file descriptors, it should
cause a program-wide GC of all runtimes. Maybe this style would apply
only to environments like .NET.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
