[pro] [MOP] Does intern-eql-specializer serve any real purpose?

[Kenneth Tilton]

Not sure where I see either "forever growing" or "memory leak". Come to
think of it, not sure what you mean by "mandatory". It is a spec of how the
MOP should work internally. Do you have some other way in mind for things
to work?

I mean, it sounds like you might be talking about forever adding and
removing eql-specialized methods, but I'd rather not guess. Even if so,
nothing stops the implementation from GCing unused specializer metaobjects.

-hk


On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin <
jean.claude.beaudoin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello CL Pros,
>
> Lately I have been improving the MOPishness of MKCL and that brought me in
> contact with the specification of intern-eql-specializer in AMOP.
>
> The EQ requirement on its returned value seem to me to dictate a
> hash-table implementation (PCL and its derivatives all seem to do just
> that).
>
> The problem I see with this is that it will be a "for ever growing"
> hash-table with not upper bound in sight. And the "purpose" of such a
> mandatory built-in memory leak also completely escapes me. Could any of you
> share some insight on this question, please?
>
> Thank you,
>
> JCB
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pro mailing list
> pro at common-lisp.net
> http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
>
>


-- 
Kenneth Tilton
Fort Lauderdale, FL
http://tiltontec.com
"In a class by itself." *-Macworld*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20141226/9a5ae971/attachment.html>