|Subject:||bug#22737: 25.1; Finalizer should be optional in dynamic modules|
|Date:||Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:51:43 -0600|
> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:53:20 -0600
> From: Jess Balint <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> What will happen if such objects are exposed to Lisp, copied or
> assigned to other Lisp variables, etc.? Won't this cause all kinds of
> trouble, like modifying one such object will magically modify several
> others, which share its storage?
> This is how C code works. If you return a pointer from a function, you may have to free that pointer yourself or
> you may not. You may get the same pointer back from multiple calls to the same function. If you use the
> pointer after it's been freed, it's your problem. You need to agree with the owner of the pointer how the
> memory is to be managed. With pointers, modifications to the underlying data are visible by all who have a
> pointer to the data. I wouldn't call this "magically modifying others".
In C, yes. But we are talking about Lisp objects here.
Am I the only one who is uneasy with supporting such Lisp objects? If
so, I will shut up and install the changes. Daniel, John, what's your
opinion on this?
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|