[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gen gc
From: |
Han-Wen Nienhuys |
Subject: |
Re: gen gc |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:08:10 +0200 |
address@hidden writes:
> >>> SCM_DEFINE (scm_object_address, "object-address", 1, 0, 0,
> >>> (SCM obj),
> >>> "Return an integer that for the lifetime of @var{obj} is uniquely\n"
> >>> "returned by this function for @var{obj}")
> >What if I can't? Memory cells are going to move around. I don't see a
> >way to generate a unique number without making some kind of table for
> >objects subjected to object-address.
> >
> >
> Actually it only says it should be unique, not never-changing. In
> particular,
> all it needs for eq? to grok it is uniqueness. I guess just returning
> the address
> ought to work, no?
It says "for the lifetime of this object".
Anyways, the goops code only uses the address for printing, so it
would safe to return the address. I suggest that the documentation be
changed to
"Return the address of OBJ as an integer. Note that this
address may change between runs due to garbage collection."
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/
- gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/17
- Re: gen gc, Marius Vollmer, 2002/07/17
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/17
- Re: gen gc, Miroslav Silovic, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/18
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Tom Lord, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Han-Wen, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Rob Browning, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Marius Vollmer, 2002/07/19
- Re: gen gc, Dirk Herrmann, 2002/07/18