[mercury-users] Another Mercury Modes Problem

[Bob McKay]

On Friday, May 31, 2002, at 02:45 PM, Ralph Becket wrote:

> Bob McKay, Friday, 31 May 2002:
>>
>> Hi Ralph; I'd come to the conclusion I would have to switch to arrays
>> for just this reason. Typically, individuals might occupy a few K
>> (in my main application, they will be resolution clause sets). I
>> expect to need to run populations of a few thousand. So we're likely
>> up in the 10s of MB. Assuming that I will need to run for hundreds
>> or thousands of generations, then destructive update of this main
>> data structure is going to be crucial.
>
> But surely only the current generation will be live data at any point?
> In which case previous generations will be garbage collected.

Aaaah, this is where my misunderstandings show. I had thought that
the only space that got garbage collected was
.data structures freed up by backtracking
.dead data structures (ie inst dead)
If that's a misunderstanding, my apologies. If so, then I probably
don't need unique modes (but I probably _will_ need parametric
bound modes, which on my understanding of the discussion suffer
the same problem?)

	Best Wishes
	Bob McKay

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
post:  mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------