Re: HTTP client module

John Snelson wrote:
> Florent Georges wrote:

  Ho John,

>>   BTW, if I understand correctly, because you tell you don't
>> need to keep the response buffers, we are not talking about
>> lazy evaluation, but instead about static analysis to
>> determine if an item will be ever used or not.  If there is
>> any doubt, even with lazy evaluation, you will need to either
>> evaluate the item or keep the response buffers in memory,
>> won't you?

> I'm not talking about static analysis, but that's a way that it
> could be implemented. The thing is, most often there isn't any
> doubt about how an expression result is used.

  But we'd like to handle non-obvious cases as well, wouldn't
we? ;-)

  I think there are two possible methods to avoid this attribute:
1/ static analysis to determine if an item is accessed or not,
but I think we agree we can't cover every cases because static
analysis has a cost, and 2/ lazy evaluation but then, I think we
couldn't avoid reading the whole response and keeping it in
memory untill the item is no longer referenced.

  And in both cases, I do think this is not a good thing for an
extension to rely on either one to provide a feature, because I doubt
every processors provide those features for extensions.

  But I can have missed something...

  Regards,

-- 
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/