Re: garbage collection thoughts... again?!

["Peter Hill" <corwin@...>]

Wim:
> Unlike mentioned by Rici and Peter Hill (if I remember correctly) I would
> suggest not to link the key/value pairs themselves, partly because of the
> storage overhead, but mostly because key/value pairs _are_ relocatable.

Rici:
> Yes, good point. I'm agnostic on whether to link the key/value pairs or
> create separate structures; there are several ways of accomplishing the
> same purpose, and I was just casting about for one that "fit". It wouldn't
> fit with incremental garbage collection, as you point out.

Not strictly true... but it would require a double-linked list to adjust the
pointers after a table resizing (so now we're talking two pointers rather
than one).

*cheers*
Peter Hill