[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GC, exit-to-system
- To: David C. Plummer <ucbkim!QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM!DCP>
- Subject: Re: GC, exit-to-system
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 86 07:45:28 PDT
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 12 Jul 86 08:07:00 EDT. <860712080715.8.DCP@FIREBIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
On a machine which does real-time garbage collection, a definition
(defun gc () nil)
would be sufficient. If you want to give people control over the
various other types of gc that the lisp machine can do, then write
Many people (I'd say 'most' but I don't have the figures at hand to
back it up) use Lisp on stock hardware where a garbage collection does
indeed stop computation for a noticeable period of time. It is for
these systems that the 'gc' function exists.
The gc function is merely a suggestion to the lisp system, if it
can't do a gc, it can ignore the suggestion.
This whole discussion is an example of a bigger issue: there need to
be sub-standards for various subsets of the community. For example,
many (again, perhaps 'most') Lisp users run under the Unix operating
system. Our users want hooks to the unique features of Unix.
While there is a framework for declaring (proclaming?) standards,
there should be a effort made to provide standards for communities of