Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <9500719.29092@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
References: <D16Ho3.4BE@lcpd2.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> <3e2bj6$43a@network.ucsd.edu> <3e30ag$ar1@wariat.wariat.org> <19941231.180912.4252 <19950103.042205.477642.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 08:18:45 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:106272 comp.lang.lisp:16301

dhanley@picasso (David Hanley) writes:

>John Ellis (ellis@parc.xerox.com) wrote:
>: 
>: The language semantics allow a mostly precise collector, in which the
>: locations of almost all pointers are known by the collector.  Only
>: unions, which are untagged, must be scanned conservatively.
>
>        Indeed the language definition does allow this.  But, as I
>mentioned up there, unless you want to do a lot of compiler work,
>or change language semantics, you've got to use a conservative
>collector.  Why else does your paper suggest such radical changes
>to the C++ language to assist in garbage collection?

The paper DOESN'T suggest radical changes to the C++ language to assist
in garbage collection.  Sheesh!

The paper does suggest some "radical" changes to the C++ language to
assist programmers in writing bug-free programs, but these changes
are purely optional and ENTIRELY SEPARATE from the changes suggested
for GC.

-- 
Fergus Henderson - fjh@munta.cs.mu.oz.au
