Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This very significantly increase memory usage, because now every
WeakRefhas its ownWeakMapinstance (208Bfor one entry).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could keep one WeakRef per Ractor, as #2 does, but only if there was a mechanism to also move/copy the referenced object if necessary. This would be possible to implement but would significantly increase the complexity.
Alternatively, we could follow #2, but would need to somehow prevent WeakRefs from being moved.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I mean, what I would really want is a ractor-shareable, mutable
WeakMap, but I guess the constraints around non-shareable values could not be resolved.Or alternatively, a way to mutate an object before and after it has been sent over a port. That way it could hold on to the referenced object for transit.
Both of these are obviously out of scope for this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's unfortunate is that since a couple versions, thanks to @peterzhu2118 we have actual weak references in the GC, and
WeakRefcould be implemented without needing a WeakMap (I think Peter had a prototype).But since it's all private API and
weakrefis a gem, it can't use those facilities.My preferred solution (but not the easiest) would be to request
weakrefto be made core, so that it can become a real weakref.It was extracted as a gem because that was the direction to turn the stdlib into gems for easier maintenance, but given it's barely 40 lines of codes, I'd think this is a bit of an overshoot.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I agree, that would be a proper solution.