Garbage collection of atoms

Ulf Wiger <>
Tue Nov 2 09:14:00 CET 1999


On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Michael C Williams wrote:

mike>If you don't dynamically create atoms, you don't have to worry
mike>about it. And why should you dynamically create atoms?

Why, we do it. ;)

For example, erlang allows only atoms as registered names of processes and
ets tables. If you have a problem which calls for a derived table name (and
why not?), you must create an atom in runtime.

There are of course ways around dynamic atom creation in most cases, but
why would you want to create workarounds in your code? ;)

/Uffe

mike>
mike>/Mike
mike>
mike>
mike>On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, James Hague wrote:
mike>
mike>> Has the garbage collection of atoms issue been resolved in newer versions 
mike>> of Erlang or is it still an outstanding issue?  Sure would be nice to not 
mike>> have to worry about it :)
mike>> 
mike>> James
mike>> 
mike>
mike>

Ulf Wiger, Chief Designer AXD 301         <>
Ericsson Telecom AB                          tfn: +46  8 719 81 95
Varuvägen 9, Älvsjö                          mob: +46 70 519 81 95
S-126 25 Stockholm, Sweden                   fax: +46  8 719 43 44




More information about the erlang-questions mailing list