From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mikael Djurfeldt To: Ken Raeburn Cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se Subject: Re: guile and emacs Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 13:48:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <199908281821.OAA14563@raeburn.org> X-SW-Source: 1999-q3/msg00001.html Ken Raeburn 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