Solution to finalisation problem [Re: fork()]

[Graham Matthews]

Graham Matthews:
> If you run *all* finalisers of *all* collected objects before you
> actually delete or partially delete any of those objects then all
> finalisers run in well defined contexts and there are no problems
> with finalisers.
Tim Peters (tim_one at email.msn.com) wrote:
: Sure there are:  finalizers in cycles remain largely useless in practice
: without a way to specify the order in which they're invoked.  Go back to the
: Java part of the thread.  The language can't know whether a cycle needs to
: be finalized in a particular order, or, if it does, what that order may be.
: In Java this has nothing to do with partial deletion:  the spec is very
: clear that the implementation must guarantee that all objects reachable from
: a finalizer are wholly intact when the finalizer is run.  What it doesn't
: say-- because it can't --is that all objects reachable from a finalizer will
: be in a "useful" state.  

I don't understand this phrase "useful" state. If you run a two pass
collector then the order in which you finalise doesn't matter. All
objects will be in a state in which they can be finalised in pass 1 since
nothing is deleted in pass 1. I don't see the problem here at all.

Tim Peters (tim_one at email.msn.com) wrote:
: Understood the first time; but if finalizers are to be invoked on cycle
: members, that's just necessary, not sufficient.
: 
At the risk of sounding completely brain-dead ... huh?!

graham

-- 
           As you grow up and leave the playground
       where you kissed your prince and found your frog
          Remember the jester that showed you tears
                   the script for tears