Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any >> reason you couldn't >> >> (poke destination (peek source)) > > That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing > in Lisp if you use something like that. Writing in this "augmented > Lisp" can be ok if well-localized and done carefully, but you no > longer have the guarantees that you get from unaugmented Lisp. By > adding one feature you've removed another. Whatever do you mean? The portion of memory used for memory-mapped registers is simply excluded from GC; everything else works as normal. All modern Lisps (yes, *Common* Lisps) support a foreign-function interface to talk to C libraries. Data involved with these kinds of interface is ignored by the GC, for obvious reasons. Do you claim that these implementations are not truly Lisps? -- There are three doors. Behind one is a tiger. Behind another: the Truth. The third is a closet... choose wisely. E-mail me at: (remove-if (lambda (c) (find c ";:-")) "a;t:k-;[EMAIL PROTECTED];p:i-.:e-d:u;") -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
