26 Oct
2004
26 Oct
'04
5:09 a.m.
On 26 October 2004 03:51, oleg@pobox.com wrote:
Simon Marlow wrote:
I've been wondering whether having a more synchronous kind of finalizer would be a good thing.
Hans Boehm in his POPL2003 paper "Destructors, Finalizers, and Synchronization" persuasively argued that finalizers _must_ be asynchronous. That assertion is the title of Section 3.5 of the paper.
I didn't mean fully synchronous, just "more synchronous". For example, the finalization routine could be run directly after garbage collection. Hugs & nhc98 already do this, because they don't support Haskell finalizers. Just a thought, anyway (and I've read that paper, it's great). Cheers, Simon