On 01/02/12 10:44, Phil Clayton wrote:
On 29/01/12 15:57, David Matthews wrote:
On 27/01/2012 20:15, Phil Clayton wrote:
Thinking about explicitly deleting callbacks led me to ask whether each
ML function passed as a callback has its callback reused on subsequent
calls. If reuse occurs, the num
On 29/01/12 15:57, David Matthews wrote:
On 27/01/2012 20:15, Phil Clayton wrote:
Thinking about explicitly deleting callbacks led me to ask whether each
ML function passed as a callback has its callback reused on subsequent
calls. If reuse occurs, the number of call sites in the source code
wou
On 27/01/2012 20:15, Phil Clayton wrote:
Thinking about explicitly deleting callbacks led me to ask whether each
ML function passed as a callback has its callback reused on subsequent
calls. If reuse occurs, the number of call sites in the source code
would bound memory usage.
I'm guessing that
David,
Thanks, that's good to know.
Thinking about explicitly deleting callbacks led me to ask whether each
ML function passed as a callback has its callback reused on subsequent
calls. If reuse occurs, the number of call sites in the source code
would bound memory usage.
I'm guessing that
Phil,
Currently, callbacks remain in effect for ever and are never
garbage-collected. I've certainly come across cases where I would want
a callback to remain in effect after the function that passed it in had
returned. For example, the window procedure in RegisterClassEx in
Windows. I don'
I have been assuming that the pointer back to an ML function passed to a
foreign C function will still be valid after the C function has
returned, so the callback can occur sometime later (from a different C
function). Is that a valid assumption?
I made this assumption based on some tests in