At Mon, 5 May 2014 11:53:09 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote: > Would it make sense for will executors [^1] to have a definition of > "unreachability" that includes GC, as now, but also immanent program > termination (and they run automatically on termination)?
I don't think that would work well. Suppose that you have wills on objects A and B, where B is reachable from A's will (i.e., the will for A assumes that it can use B). Then, it would be important to execute A's will before B's will. Collecting that kind of dependency information is difficult and/or expansive. Also, will executors do not form a hierarchy in the same way as custodians. A will executor can itself become unreachable, in which case none its remaining wills are executed. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
