Marius Vollmer wrote:
>
> So, do you rely on this ordering guarantee?
No, my uses of guardians don't rely on this.
Also I'm pretty sure that I'd expect any object added to a guardian to
be returned when that object becomes inaccessible. If cycles can make
this untrue, even when the whole cycle is inaccessible, that's pretty bad.
So I'm happy with your proposal.
> If you do, you would need to take care of the ordering yourself, which
> is quite easy by keeping objects alive in a global data structure
> until they are no longer needed.
Not sure what you mean by this, though. How would this generate an
ordering?
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
