Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There is no guarantee about the order in which objects are returned
> from a guardian. If you want to impose an order on finalization
> actions, for example, you can do that by keeping objects alive in
> some global data structure
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (I am a bit worried right now that the 'obvious' approach of putting
> FOO and BAR into a weak key hashtable with FOO as the key and BAR as
> the value does conflict a bit with my original goal of breaking up
> cycles from strong values to weak keys. W
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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
> order
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
Hi,
Guile's guardians currently make the guarantee that "it is impossible
for a guardian to return a 'contained' object before its 'containing'
object."
I am considering removing this guarantee since it makes it impossible
for guardians to deal with cycles among guarded objects, and because
it is
