Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp,zer.z-netz.sprachen.alg
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uunet!sytex!smcl
From: smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Subject: Re: Reference Counting (was Re: Searching Method for Incremental Gar
Message-ID: <mqy7Vc2w165w@sytex.com>
Keywords: storage garbage collection incremental search method
Sender: bbs@sytex.com
Organization: Sytex Access Ltd.
References: <CzKAnH.D3@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 12:19:09 GMT
Lines: 21
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c:117464 comp.lang.c++:99860 comp.lang.lisp:15739

simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke) writes:

> In the meantime, circular structures being admitted as a problem, why
> is the reference counting solution to be condemned out of hand?
> Mark-and-sweep would fail in just the same circumstances, and so, if I
> understand it at all, would a conventional generational strategy.

Howdy,
        This is simply not true at all. Please refer to any good
data structures book that covers gc strategies for an explanation,
or check out Paul Wilson's excellent gc survey paper on
cs.utexas.edu.  This is an innapropriate forum for explaining 
the basics of gc, but let me repeat: The above quoted sentences
are not accurate.  Mark/sweep, copying and non-copying/copying
garbage collectors have no problems with circular garbage in 
the general case.

=============================================
Scott McLoughlin
Conscious Computing
=============================================
