From: Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@...>
Date: 2005-10-16T23:19:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Help! define_method leaking procs...

--- ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:

> >>>>> "E" == Eric Mahurin <eric_mahurin@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> E> to memory that isn't being freed.  From the ruby script
> level
> E> for this example, by both of these definitions it is a
> memory
> E> leak.  From ruby itself, ruby probably still has
> references to
> E> the memory, so (b) may not call it a "memory leak".  To me
> (a)
> E> is the right definition because it describes symtoms not
> the
> E> mechanism.  If any program keeps growing in memory and it
> E> shouldn't, I'd say it has a memory leak.  It doesn't
> matter how
> E> it comes about and whether or not the program could free
> the
> E> memory if it was fixed, it is still "leaking" memory.
> 
>  No please.
> 
>  You are writing stupid program, don't expect that ruby
> correct what you
>  write. ruby is a programming language, first learn it before
> trying to
>  blame it.

The above paragraph doesn't even blame ruby.  This thread
started with a real ruby program "leaking" memory.  I gave a
possible reason as that closures hold strong references to all
variables in there scope (with a leaky example).  Matz also
responded to this thread giving the exact same possibility.  He
has also discussed addressing this issue in another thread
(where he said eval could be a keyword).  Does he need to go
learn the language better too?



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com