"endeavor to"
"anticipate"
"allow for"
"prepare for"
"encourage"
"facilitate"
...good
"ensure" / "force" / "guarantee" (not in your control)
"reclaim" / "recycle" / "release" (too absolute)
...bad
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Val wrote:
> Hello Jesper
> if I
Hello Jesper
if I understand this thread correctly, "make sure" should be rephrased by
"make extra efforts for ...".
Sorry for nitpicking (not trying to look pedantic or arrogant)
Val
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 4:28:09 PM UTC+1, Jesper Louis Andersen
wrote:
>
>
> you'd like to eventually
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 10:22 PM John Souvestre wrote:
> > If finalizers were indeed totally useless, it would obviously be totally
> useless to implement support for them.
>
> If someone described a few cases where finalizers were useful perhaps it
> would help understand
There are a bunch of examples of where they are *useful* (some in this
thread). It's just, that you can not *rely* on them for correctness. If you
are setting a finalizer, because something needs to happen before some
value gets GCed/falls out of scope, you are doing it wrong, don't do it. If
you
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, 10:35 AM John Souvestre wrote:
> > If you find a piece of code that uses a finaliser for the correct
> operation of that program, that code is broken.
>
> Does that include using a finalizer with CGO code? From what I read, that
> seems to be where
> If you find a piece of code that uses a finaliser for the correct operation
> of that program, that code is broken.
Does that include using a finalizer with CGO code? From what I read, that
seems to be where they are most often used.
>
> If finalizers were indeed totally useless, it would obviously be totally
useless to implement support for them.
If someone described a few cases where finalizers were useful perhaps it would
help understand them.
John
John Souvestre - New Orleans LA
--
You received this message
If you find a piece of code that uses a finaliser for the correct operation of
that program, that code is broken.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:04:35 AM UTC+8, Axel Wagner wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 4:05 PM, T L
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:46:50 PM UTC+8, Dave Cheney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:42:08 UTC+11, T L wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 4:05 PM, T L wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:46:50 PM UTC+8, Dave Cheney wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:42:08 UTC+11, T L wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:33:08 PM UTC+8, Dave Cheney wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 07:05:13 -0800 (PST)
T L wrote:
[...]
> My understanding is finalisers are guaranteed to run for some cases,
> but not for some other cases, for a long running program.
> If any cases are not guaranteed to run, then SetFinalizer would be
> totally
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:46:50 PM UTC+8, Dave Cheney wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:42:08 UTC+11, T L wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:33:08 PM UTC+8, Dave Cheney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:25:20 UTC+11, T L wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:42:08 UTC+11, T L wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:33:08 PM UTC+8, Dave Cheney wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:25:20 UTC+11, T L wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:33:51 PM UTC+8, C Banning wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:33:08 PM UTC+8, Dave Cheney wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:25:20 UTC+11, T L wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:33:51 PM UTC+8, C Banning wrote:
>>>
>>> From the doc: "The finalizer for obj is scheduled to run at some
>>>
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:25:20 PM UTC+8, T L wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:33:51 PM UTC+8, C Banning wrote:
>>
>> From the doc: "The finalizer for obj is scheduled to run at some
>> arbitrary time after obj becomes unreachable. There is no guarantee that
>>
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 01:25:20 UTC+11, T L wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:33:51 PM UTC+8, C Banning wrote:
>>
>> From the doc: "The finalizer for obj is scheduled to run at some
>> arbitrary time after obj becomes unreachable. There is no guarantee that
>> finalizers
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:33:51 PM UTC+8, C Banning wrote:
>
> From the doc: "The finalizer for obj is scheduled to run at some
> arbitrary time after obj becomes unreachable. There is no guarantee that
> finalizers will run before a program exits, so typically they are useful
> only
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:33:51 PM UTC+8, C Banning wrote:
>
> From the doc: "The finalizer for obj is scheduled to run at some
> arbitrary time after obj becomes unreachable. There is no guarantee that
> finalizers will run before a program exits, so typically they are useful
> only
>From the doc: "The finalizer for obj is scheduled to run at some arbitrary
time after obj becomes unreachable. There is no guarantee that finalizers
will run before a program exits, so typically they are useful only for
releasing non-memory resources associated with an object during a
19 matches
Mail list logo