Re: Properties and readonly objects
>>>> "Hrvoje" == Hrvoje Niksic
<hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
Hrvoje> sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])
writes:
>> >>>> "Hrvoje" ==
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
>>
Hrvoje> BTW, why do we want Lisp-level readonly objects in the first
Hrvoje> place?
>
> The most obvious is that, with the right dumper and OS support, you
> can put them in shareable/read-only/EPROM memory.
Hrvoje> Isn't this the point of C-level readonly objects? If I understand
Hrvoje> Olivier correctly, the "lisp-level readonly objects" would still be
Hrvoje> modifiable from C, which would make them unsuitable for
Hrvoje> shareable/read-only memory.
Hrvoje> Or am I misunderstanding Olivier?
Hmm, my understanding of Lisp-level readonly object was "readonly
objects created from Lisp." But maybe I'm wrong.
> Another is that you can optimize GC with this kind of knowledge.
It
> seems that, since reachability is affected by mutable plists, you
> want the plists of immutable objects to be immutable as well.
Hrvoje> Hmm. The old "pure" stuff behaved this way for strings. It took
the
Hrvoje> easy way out for symbols, simply refusing to create pure symbols.
Can't strings also have plists?
--
Cheers =8-} Chipsy
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla