From: Justin Johnson Date: 2002-07-04T02:53:53+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby implementation Q's > I agree it is interesting. But you will not see it in (my) Ruby in > the near future. I have to consider it more deeply, since I have > some concerns about implementation / language impact of the idea. I'm not suggesting it as a request for the current Ruby. I mention the idea because it is an interesting thought and because I'm developing another implementation of the language. I think that introducing manual deletion into a language like Ruby may create an inbalance and have an adverse effect on code design. If I could just come up with a way of (quickly) detecting the moment an object isn't referenced anymore.... -- Justin Johnson justinj@mobiusent.com Technical Director Mobius "Yukihiro Matsumoto" wrote in message news:1025713798.412816.5127.nullmailer@picachu.netlab.jp... > Hi, > > In message "Re: Ruby implementation Q's" > on 02/07/03, "Justin Johnson" writes: > > |a.destroy > | Action: 'unitialize' method is called for 'a'. 'a' is removed from local > |variable hash. 'a' no longer exists as a variable. > | > |Any ptr's that used to reference to 'a' are set to Nil. This can be done as > |the runtime comes across ptr's to dead objects. This means that 'destroy' > |could be implemented as a method - it wouldn't be possible to make 'a' live > |again after 'destroy'. > > I agree it is interesting. But you will not see it in (my) Ruby in > the near future. I have to consider it more deeply, since I have > some concerns about implementation / language impact of the idea. > > By the way, it's not usually called "finalization" in GC languages. > > matz. >