3 ms·
Are you sure? I thought @ was reference counted in 0.6 and then removed after. Was it before that?
by iopq 9y ago
Are you sure? I thought @ was reference counted in 0.6 and then removed after. Was it before that?
- steveklabnik 9y agoI don't have any citation beyond "Graydon told me one time". It was like, very very long ago, possibly before @T even existed.
- Rusky 9y agoIIRC it was a mark and sweep GC in the OCaml implementation.
- steveklabnik 9y agoThat sounds about right.
- jacobush 9y agoWow, I can't believe I have been reading up lately on official Rust documentation and still I was under the impression that Rust had optional GC. Thanks for sorting me out...
- kbenson 9y agoWell, I think is sort of does when you use the Rc types, right? It's just much more explicit than a type modifier, it's a type wrapper that requires requires some level of additional code ornamentation in some instances when using later as well. It's just not really any different than using a library in C++ that offers the same, except that in Rust's case the library is part of the stdlib.