[erlang-questions] Ideas for a new Erlang
Thu Jun 26 17:36:23 CEST 2008
Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> I hope that we can rely on Erlang garbage collection to
> collect any process suspended in a receive construct and not registered
> and not referenced by any other process.
But we really can't, can we? That would imply that a GC happening on one
node in California could send a message to Philadelphia to let that node
know there's one less reference to the process ID.
It would also imply that term_to_binary serializing a process ID and
then dropping the variable holding the actual PID would allow the
process to exit. So process A wrapping a PID of process X in a binary,
dropping it into processes B's mailbox, then exiting, might cause
process X to exit before process B read the binary out of its mailbox
and turned it back into a term.
I don't think the semantics of Erlang are such that anyone expects
processes to exit just because nobody can send them a message. What
would be the exit reason? Could you put catch around the receive and
(That *is* how Hermes worked: to kill a runaway process, you just
snipped off its output channels by having the processes listening exit,
and the process could no longer affect its environment. But Hermes had a
completely different strategy from Erlang for handling failures.)
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
More information about the erlang-questions