| 15:03 | <Caio Lima> | Are we meeting today? |
| 15:04 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | I am technically off today but can join the meeting |
| 15:06 | <Caio Lima> | I got confused due to this message |
| 15:44 | <Olivier Flückiger> | guybedford: I have some questions regarding the source phase imports PR if you don't mind :) If I understand it correctly, then the current version of the proposal basically does not allow us to garbage collect a source module ever. Because at any later point in time, somebody might import source the same source text from the same url and is guaranteed to not observer any module body code being executed, right? |
| 15:45 | <Olivier Flückiger> | So the PR improves on that situation and basically ties the module to the specific source import execution. That is certainly better, but as nicolo-ribaudo pointed out, as soon as we post-message the source module to another thread, we always have to expect to get the same handle back. |
| 15:47 | <Olivier Flückiger> | If that is correct, it basically makes the collection of source modules from impossible to too difficult to implement (distributed GC is a research topic for good reasons). And yes, due to the possibility of cycles in your message passing, you need proper tracing for it. |
| 15:49 | <Olivier Flückiger> | Granted, I got it correct so far, I was wondering how to rectify the problem. And I had one complicated and one trivial idea. The complicated one is to disallow sending it back to the same worker that sent it out. The trivial idea was to only allow one clone. |