From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: gen gc Date: 20 Jul 2002 00:55:00 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <87k7nrcoqj.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <15669.59575.560391.128570@blauw.xs4all.nl> <871ya2ezjo.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <15669.63974.973133.308661@blauw.xs4all.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1027119324 1836 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2002 22:55:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:55:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Vgeh-0000TV-00 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 00:55:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17VgeY-0007yy-00; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:55:14 -0400 Original-Received: from dialin.speedway42.dip95.dokom.de ([195.138.42.95] helo=zagadka.ping.de) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17VgeL-0007yg-00 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:55:01 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 3107 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Jul 2002 22:55:00 -0000 Original-To: hanwen@cs.uu.nl In-Reply-To: <15669.63974.973133.308661@blauw.xs4all.nl> Original-Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:834 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:834 Han-Wen writes: > mvo@zagadka.ping.de writes: > > > It would be cool if you could fake it. It doesn't need to be the real > > memory address of the object, just a unique integer. > > What if I can't? Then we can remove object-address. If people need something like it, we can keep it, but with a different name and the warning that the address of an object might change over its lifetime. > Memory cells are going to move around. I don't see a way to generate > a unique number without making some kind of table for objects > subjected to object-address. Yes. But for a deprecation period, this will be good enough, no? > Btw, I can imagine that internal hash tables might use the address of > a cell as a source for a hash index. Does that happen anywhere? Yes, in scm_ihashq and scm_ihashv and maybe elsewhere. There are techniques to deal with this, I believe... _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel