[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:28:16 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> But it seems that `values' is never flushed, so it is a source of leaks.
>> We should probably fix it (I'd remove it since almost noone even knows that
>> it exists, but I guess Richard uses it once in a blue moon).
>>
>> I don't use it myself. I put it in because a history of values
>> is a useful thing for any read-eval-print loop. We could delete it,
>> but it might be better to do more to inform people about it.
>> For instance, mention it in the text in the *scratch* buffer.
>>
>> Then they might indeed find it useful. Or if they don't,
>> we could delete it.
>>
>> I agree with the suggestion to truncate it to a specified maximum
>> length. How about 40?
> Personally, I can't remember using anything more than (car values).
> Maybe once I used something older than the most recent addition to the
> list.
> So it seems to me a length of 3 would probably be plenty.
> By the way, the name “values” is not good. I would suggest
> “eval-expression-recent-values”.
ielm implements its own mechanism for it and it calls it "*", "**", and
"***", giving access only to the last 3 values.
I do use these occasionally (contrary to `values' which I've never used).
So I guess 3 is plenty indeed. In many circumstances where I could use this
kind of feature I prefer using (setq sm-tmp <exp>) and then refer to that
value as `sm-tmp' this way I can reuse this value many times easily
(whereas with `values' I'd have to keep track of the position within the
list etc...).
Stefan
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, (continued)
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2007/09/27
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/27
- Message not available
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Stefan Monnier, 2007/09/28
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Joe Wells, 2007/09/28
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Stefan Monnier, 2007/09/28
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Joe Wells, 2007/09/28
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Stefan Monnier, 2007/09/28
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Joe Wells, 2007/09/28
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/29
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Joe Wells, 2007/09/29
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection,
Stefan Monnier <=
- RE: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Drew Adams, 2007/09/29
- Re: frames vs. weak hash tables and garbage collection, Richard Stallman, 2007/09/30