From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA04809; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:04:05 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA03299; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:04:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from beaune.inria.fr (beaune.inria.fr [128.93.8.3]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f95C42H23853; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:04:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: by beaune.inria.fr (8.8.8/1.1.22.3/14Sep99-0328PM) id OAA0000011265; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:04:02 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:04:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: Damien Doligez Message-Id: <200110051204.OAA0000011265@beaune.inria.fr> To: caml-list@inria.fr, caml@inria.fr, cq@htec.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [Caml-list] fumbling with Gc.finalise Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk From: Chris Quinn >Would it not be more reasonable to treat the argument and >finalisation closure as roots until the latter has actually completed >execution? That's exactly what the current system does. I guess what you want is that the finalisation function for a value is not called until the finalisation functions of all values that depend on it have finished execution. There are two problems with that: 1. What happens to circular values (a circular value depends on itself, directly or indirectly). 2. How to implement it with reasonable efficiency. I don't have a solution. -- Damien ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr