On 23 December 2011 05:19, Christopher Oliver
<current.input.port at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:24:17 -0500
> "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>
>> I think I found the underlying cause of all this grief, which in fact
>> has nothing to do with the user interrupt handler. The problem is that
>> the weak finalization process is very busy due to thrashing between
>> the VM and the image. The VM notifies the image when weak references
>> need to be cleaned up, and the weak finalization process responds by
>> creating new weak references for the VM to clean up, etc etc etc ...
>>
>> A fix is posted to the inbox in Collections-dtl.466
>>
>> As Andreas observes, creating a smarter user interrupt handler is not
>> at all trivial. But creating a smarter weak finalization process is
>> really easy :)
>
> I look forward to trying this out.  I still think down the road, we could buy some additional generality/cleverness
> in regards to whom we interrupt; I think this is what Elliott was suggesting, though I get nervous about looking at
> any commercial code (did he say that was from VW?) for intellectual property reasons.

As a general principle, that's laudable. Cog is, however, MIT licensed
(http://www.mirandabanda.org/cogblog/about-cog/) so in this case
there's no need to fret.

frank

>  I have an idea of using
> small identity dictionary of interrupt actions by keystroke to use in EventSensor>>processEvents, but I need to
> think on this more; it's not even half baked yet.  There really is a lot of indirection between seeing the key stroke
> and knocking down a process.
>
> Happy whatever you may celebrate!
>
> --
> Christopher Oliver <current.input.port at gmail.com>
>