[Arjen Markus] There has been much discussion about ''references'' to data in Tcl, in order to build [complex data structures] and such. Inevitably, garbage collection pops up. This page is meant to show that at some mundane level you can let Tcl do the job for you. The script below will create a counter "object" that keeps its internal state hidden. It juggles a bit with the counter object and then throws it away. The essence: the internal state is stored via the [[interp alias]] mechanism that allows extra arguments and the counter itself is destroyed via the [trace] command. ---- namespace eval Counter { variable nextid 0 proc makecounter { name initial } { upvar $name vname variable nextid set vname "[namespace current]::$nextid" uplevel [list trace variable $name u "[namespace current]::deletecounter $vname"] interp alias {} $vname {} [namespace current]::increasecounter $vname $initial incr nextid } proc increasecounter { cmdname current } { set result [expr {$current+1}] interp alias {} $cmdname {} [namespace current]::increasecounter $cmdname $result return $result } proc deletecounter { aliasname counter dummy op } { interp alias {} $aliasname {} # puts "deleted: $counter" } } ;# End of namespace # # Create a counter # Counter::makecounter count1 0 # puts [trace vinfo count1] puts "1? [$count1]" puts "2? [$count1]" # # Copy the counter (not a reference, just a harmless alias) # set count2 $count1 puts "3? [$count2]" # # Deleting the alias has no effect # unset count2 puts "4? [$count1]" # # Deleting the true counter does! # set count3 $count1 unset count1 puts "5? [$count3]" Result: 1? 1 2? 2 3? 3 4? 4 invalid command name "::Counter::0" while executing "$count3" invoked from within "puts "5? [$count3]" " (file "counter.tcl" line 52) ---- Some references: [linked lists] [Tcl and LISP] [complex data structures] ---- The following "'''AI koan'''" (see [http://tuxedo.org/jargon/html/Some-AI-Koans.html] for more) points out a fundamental difference between the Tcl and LISP approaches to when unused memory is reclaimed and the implications this has for what can be a value. One day a student came to Moon and said: "I understand how to make a better garbage collector. We must keep a reference count of the pointers to each cons." Moon patiently told the student the following story: "One day a student came to Moon and said: `I understand how to make a better garbage collector ... (Editorial note: Pure reference-count garbage collectors have problems with circular structures that point to themselves. On the primitive level Tcl avoids that problem by the principle that ''everything is a string'', since strings don't point to anything.) ---- Tcl has a build-in garbage collector on C level. See [Tcl_Obj] structure and functions like Tcl_IncrRefCount. So internal tcl use objects and references. The main problem is that this approach assume that: 1. every structure (Tcl_Obj) has string representation 1. every structure (Tcl_Obj) of certain type can be build from string This works fine for list, numerics and strings (string based types). In most cases is the better way to implement own special type in C-level (see keylset implementation in TclX) as to simulate it in Tcl (high level). This does not work if you want to have handles (or something like objects in Tcl). Such handles have not really string representation (like Tk-Windows names). In such cases one can use [Tcl_Obj] only to gain some speed but garbage collection is not possible here. Handles in tcl are just strings and you can build strings every time again. If tcl would have garbage collector for Tk: set win [button .mybutton] unset win # in line above garbage collector have destroyed .mybutton If one what such thinks is it easy to implement it with [Tcl_Obj]. ---- I was pondering the [http] package; the need to call '''http::cleanup''' when done with a token and the potential for leaking memory just seems wrong. So I was thinking abuot a tcl-level garbage collector, and came up with the following. I suppose it's a mark & sweep collector of sorts, although it doesn't do any marking or recursive sweep. proc gc-find {pattern} { set vars [info vars $pattern] set searchspace [uplevel info vars] foreach var $searchspace { if {[uplevel array exists $var]} { foreach {k v} [array get $var] { check-item $v vars } } else { check-item [uplevel set $var] vars } } return $vars } proc check-item {item vars} { upvar $vars vlist catch { foreach el $item { set s [lsearch -exact $vlist $el] if {$s > -1} { set vlist [lreplace $vlist $s $s] } } } } One would periodically call it as foreach tok [gc-find {::http::[0-9]*}] { ::http::cleanup $tok } It assumes that any tokens will be either an individual item in a list, or a variable by itself, and it doesn't search namespaces other than the root. ---- [RJM]: Above, the question was raised regarding garbage collection in Tk. I myself have recently had practical experiences with garbage collection in Tcl/Tk related to timing. Here a new page is referenced with the purpose to document [event processing & garbage collection in Tcl and Tk]. ---- [AM] (17 december 2007) In response to a thread on the comp.lang.tcl group, I experimented a bit with procedure traces. The idea I had was that the usual way of creating objects is to create a new procedure/command. If you want to create a ''local'' object, i.e. an object that should only exist during the life-time of a procedure, however, there is no way for Tcl to know that that is what you intended. So there is no way to actually remove it when the procedure returns. Unless you help it a bit. And that is what is done in the slightly silly script below: ====== # gc.tcl -- # An experiment with garbage-collecting "objects" # # localobj -- # Create a _local_ object # # Arguments: # name Name of the object/command # # Result: # None # # Side effects: # Creates a new command and a trace on the _calling_ # procedure if needed # proc localobj {name} { global local_objects # # Create the object # proc $name {cmd} { if { $cmd == "run" } { puts "[lindex [info level 0] 0]: Boo!" } else { return -code error "Command unknown: $cmd" } } # # Administration: # - Store the command for later GC # - Add a trace to the caller, if this was not done yet # (Take care of global objects though!) # if { [info level] > 1 } { set caller [lindex [info level -1] 0] if { ![info exists local_objects($caller)] } { trace add execution $caller leave [list localobj_destroy $caller] } lappend local_objects($caller) $name } } # localobj_destroy -- # Destroy the caller's local objects # # Arguments: # caller Name of the caller # command Original command (ignored) # code Return code (ignored) # result Result of the command (ignored) # ops Operation (ignored) # # Result: # None # # Side effects: # Destroys all objects created in the caller procedure # proc localobj_destroy {caller command code result ops} { global local_objects foreach obj $local_objects($caller) { rename $obj {} } unset local_objects($caller) } # main -- # Test this # proc myproc {} { localobj cow1 puts "Myproc" cow1 run cow2 run myproc2 } proc myproc2 {} { # localobj cow1 ;# Hm, would override the other one puts "Myproc2" cow1 run ;# cow1 was created by the calling procedure - it is still available. This is a slight flaw ;) cow2 run ;# cow2 was created as a _global_ object, is this a flaw? } localobj cow2 myproc puts "Main" cow1 ;# Now object "cow1" no longer exists, so we get an error message cow2 ====== ---- KD: Wouldn't it be better to call localobj with the name of a local variable, in which the name of the object will then be stored? In this way, Tcl's inherent rules for destroying local variables can be used to destroy the object itself too: ====== proc localobj_destroy {name args} { puts "Destroying $name" rename $name {} } proc localobj {&name} { global handlecounter if {![info exists handlecounter]} {set handlecounter 0} upvar 1 ${&name} name set name "handle#[incr handlecounter]" puts "Creating variable ${&name} = proc $name" proc $name {args} {puts "executing: [info level 0]"} trace add variable name unset [list localobj_destroy $name] } #Testing proc myproc2 {} { localobj foo $foo testlocal2 } proc myproc1 {} { localobj foo $foo testlocal1 myproc2 } localobj foo ;# this one is in fact global $foo testglobal myproc1 ====== Result: Creating variable foo = proc handle#1 executing: handle#1 testglobal Creating variable foo = proc handle#2 executing: handle#2 testlocal1 Creating variable foo = proc handle#3 executing: handle#3 testlocal2 Destroying handle#3 Destroying handle#2 [AM] (18 december 2007) Some discussion on this solution was lost, due to a problem with the disks. However, consider the following fragment: ====== proc myproc {} { localobj foo $foo testlocal1 set bar $foo unset foo $bar testlocal2 } ====== If I understand the code correctly, then this won't work as expected: [unset]ting ''foo'' will cause the associated object to disappear, leaving ''bar'' to pick up the pieces. KD: Yes, that's right. By declaring `localobj foo`, you are signing a contract that the lifetime of the object is tied to the lifetime of the variable ''foo''. Usually that's also the lifetime of the procedure call, unless ''foo'' is [unset] manually. [AM] Hm, it is not a perfect solution, but it does have its attractive points - mine was inspired by a partial/incorrect understanding of [incr Tcl]. Your solution restricts objects to the procedure that created them (unless you pass them to a called procedure). Good :) [DKF]: One solution is to give objects a method that instructs them to "return themselves to the caller", which gives them a chance to manage their reference counting/[trace]s. Another is to allow creators of an object to specify what variable to couple the lifetime to, which allows for management via [upvar]; [NAP] does this via the '''as''' method IIRC. ---- * [Arts and Crafts of Tcl-Tk programming] * [Reference counted command objects] ---- !!!!!! %| [Category Internals] |% !!!!!!