On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Alex Shinn <alexsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the user perspective there is no separation between > the port and any backing store, and they otherwise have no > way to free the resources. You should be able to reliably > accumulate a very large port and free it, or alternately > maintain many medium ports and not worry about them > hogging memory after closing. > If you lose the reference to the port, won't the memory be GC'ed? It is generally a bad practice to rely on freeing external resources, such as file descriptors, by GC. But for memory, usually we rely on GC. Besides, there can be a variation that the user provides a backing storage to a port (gauche's open-output-uvector allows that), so the association between ports and its backing storage doesn't need to be that tight, though you could argue that standard string port is a special case.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
