We'd like to have an incremental collector, and I expect we'll get there one day, but probably not very soon (unless someone dives in).
At Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:58:06 -0700, Richard Cleis wrote: > I have ruled out Racket in applications were I needed to precisely inhibit GC > until regular critical slices are completed, then trigger GC ASAP. The > efforts > were partially successful, but there's no way to guarantee behavior of faux > real-time hacks like that. > > I wonder how difficult it would be to have randomly interruptible GC. It > seems > impossible, but I would use it. The Impossible is often desirable. > > RAC > > On Jun 2, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Eduardo Bellani <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> * Extremely Unusual Situations: if you're in the unusual situation of > >> doing something normally considered inadvisable, like you're > >> intentionally designing the SR-71 to leak fuel, maybe there's some > >> bizarre rocket-scientist reason understood only by you that you have to > >> turn off GC just to get your app to fly in one piece. Almost no one > >> will ever need this, and, in the case of Racket, they could always add > >> it if they did. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
