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?
Typos in comments:
s/desroyed/destroyed/
s/receiveing/receiving/
