Re: guile and emacs

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj-pc.nada.kth.se>]

Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org> writes:

> 2) he's got some "issues" with Guile's implementation decisions,
> including the use of conservative GC.  What he's saying makes sense,
> so I'll be looking a bit at separating further into "Lisp" vs "general
> Scheme" vs "Guile" bits what I've done so far.  (GC will be an
> interesting issue though; I've got some thoughts on that.)

I'm curious about what he has to say on Guile implementation
decisions.  Could you give me a reference?

Also, regarding conservative GC, making a generic interface to the
Scheme interpreter is no solution.  If you have an interface which
would work for both an interpreter using a conservative GC and one
using precise GC, you could just as well take the one with precise GC.

The major gain of conservative GC is that the interface becomes
simpler and less bug prone.

I have only limited experience in running Guile for longer times, but
I have had scwm running for several days without problems, and a
friend of mine has a server application which also runs for long
without problems.  This makes me doubt that there is a problem in
practise with using conservative GC.

/mdj