[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GC, exit-to-system
>Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1986 22:28 EDT
>From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman%C.CS.CMU.EDU@u-tokyo.junet>
>To: "David A. Moon" <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
>Subject: GC, exit-to-system
>In-Reply-To: Msg of 10 Jul 1986 20:56-EDT from David A. Moon <Moon at STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
>Received: from CSNet-Relay by utokyo-relay; 11 Jul 86 13:34:26-JST (Fri)
>I've been thinking about the GC issue since it first came up. Even
>though systems differ tremendously in what GC means to them, it might
>make sense to provide a portable GC construct for use in portable code.
>This would say that IF the implementation ever needs to do a time
>consuming GC operation, this is the time to do it; if that doesn't make
>sense in a given implementation, this would be a no-op. This would be
>used in portable code that runs benchmarks, for example, to start the
>system in as fresh a state as possible. It might also be used when a
>program wants to initiate some short real-time operation that should not
>be interrupted for GC once it has started. It's not useful for
>everyone, but is useful in many systems and does not harm the rest.
Yes! this is just the story we are talking.
>I am somewhat more doubtful about the usefulness of BYE in any sort of
>portable code. One could argue that it would give users a standard way
>of getting out of Lisp on any system where that makes sense, and that it
>always is best to have recognizable signs on the emergency exits.
I also think BYE is not so useful in portable codes.
BYE came from the discussion on a tutorial for the novices.
It may be useful for the general training cource without Lisp machine.
If we teach a new subsystem under a operating system in my university,
at least I, first, teach how to enter the subsystem and
teach how to exit from it with no other operations. After that,
I will start the main menu.