On 31/01/2024 10:54, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:42 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>> I spent some more time digging into this, experimenting with different
>> approaches. Came up with pretty significant changes; see below:
>
> Hi Heikki,
>
> I think this approach is good. As I wrote in the first email, I had
> briefly considered reference counting, but at the time I figured there
> wasn't much point if it's only ever going to be 0 or 1, so I was
> trying to find the smallest change. But as you explained, there is
> already an interesting case where it goes to 2, and modelling it that
> way removes a weird hack, so it's a net improvement over the unusual
> 'owner' concept. +1 for your version. Are there any further tidying
> or other improvements you want to make?
Ok, no, this is good to go then. I'll rebase, fix the typos, run the
regression tests again, and push this shortly. Thanks!
--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)
