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 HAA15719; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 07:00:47 +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 HAA15720 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 07:00:46 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from str12.sobor.org (adsl-63-198-183-99.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.198.183.99]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f6950jL28576 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 07:00:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from quasar.ipa.nw.ru (anza.sobor.org [192.168.123.51]) by str12.sobor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DBDABFE8 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B493A40.1B2985FE@quasar.ipa.nw.ru> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:59:44 -0700 From: "Alexander V. Voinov" Organization: Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: caml Subject: [Caml-list] GC and interoperability with C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Hi All, >>From what I see in the documentation, I see no way to 'lock' an OCaml value on the heap so that it can be safely accessed from C code, and then 'unlock' it, say, in the finalization function of some Custom_block. In contrast to Python, e.g., where you just increment and decrement the reference count. Is this right? If this is right, the interaction of OCaml to C becomes one-way, you cannot safely access OCaml world from arbitrary C code. Is this right? Alexander ------------------- 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