On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 10:32:41AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote: > Why not just drop the 'therefore'? > > Objects in all pools not alive are considered dead. > > Are the objects not alive or the pools? If it's the objects, is the "in > all pools" necessary?
Yes, I'm just starting to wonder what it means, now it is out of context. > Seeing the "normal" doesn't make you reinterpret the rest of the > statement, because it's just confirming an assumption you already made. I think you've convinced me. > I don't like the "DOD runs detect which objects are no longer being > used" sentence--at first read, I interpret 'runs' as a verb and 'detect' > as the beginning of a noun phrase, which yields a meaningless sentence. > Is there a problem with the sentence "DOD detects which objects are no > longer being used"? Only that it's better and you thought of it, not me :-) > # underlying allocator collects these pieces, where > # possible coalesces them > # to form bigger pieces, and then puts them on free lists, > # sorted by their > # sizes. Eventually, when a new malloc() arrives, it gives > # them back to > # parrot. > > There isn't really anything *wrong* with that fragment, but it could be > (IMHO) better: > > underlying allocator collects these pieces, coalesces them if > possible to form bigger pieces, and then puts them on free > lists, > sorted by size. Eventually, when a new allocation request > arrives, it may give them back to Parrot. I think yours is better because it seems clearer, probably because it flows more smoothly and eliminates some words (without changing the meaning) Nicholas Clark -- Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
