Re: Replacement for unlocked refs?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

• Subject: Re: Replacement for unlocked refs?
• From: "J. Perkins" <jason@...>
• Date: 2002年1月31日 10:42:36 -0500

---

But really two tables are required, right? One for locked refs
and another for unlocked? And then the reference value must also
indicate which table it is stored in, by using negative numbers
for unlocked refs or something like that. Doable, but really ugly.
However it is actually implemented, this should be, IMHO, a part
of Lua itself and not something the end-user should have to write.
Is there some reason why unlocked refs were dropped?
Jason
Roberto Ierusalimschy wrote:

On 2002年1月31日, J. Perkins wrote:

If you'll accept my 0ドル.02, the current implementation of
ref/unref seems a big hack. The ability to associate C and
script objects is an awfully important feature for an
embedded language, but the current method (indices into
the registry) seems an afterthought. At the very least, a
dedicated table should be set aside for refs, freeing the
registry for application use, and support re-added for
unlocked refs.

In the work version, the old ref/unref are just macros that use
luaL_ref, luaL_unref, and lua_rawgeti over the registry. These functions
can operate over any table. So, it is trivial to put your references in
your own dedicated table (which can be weak).

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Replacement for unlocked refs?, Roberto Ierusalimschy

• References:
  • Re: Replacement for unlocked refs?, Roberto Ierusalimschy

• Prev by Date: Re: Lua libraries
• Next by Date: Re: Lua libraries
• Previous by thread: Re: Replacement for unlocked refs?
• Next by thread: Re: Replacement for unlocked refs?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread