Guido van Rossum wrote: >> For strings at least, perhaps it is time to bite the bullet and >> include weak reference support directly. Weak reference support ups >> the per string memory overhead from five words (ob_type, ob_refcnt, >> ob_size, ob_shash, ob_sstate) to six. The whole concept of weak >> dictionaries is much more useful when strings can be used as keys >> and/or values. > > Hmm... it is a high price to pay to add another word (*and* some extra > code at dealloc time!) to every string object when very few apps need > them and strings are about the most common data type. And since > they're immutable, what's the point of having weak refs to strings in > the first place? (Note that the original poster asked about > *subclasses* of strings.) Perhaps there should be a standard weakly-referenceable proxy whose sole purpose in life would be to wrap objects that can't be directly weakly referenced. Kind of the opposite of ProxyTypes - it would have an internal strong reference to the object. This could be done transparently as well - if creating an instance of ReferenceType would raise a TypeError, we take a hit and wrap the object. Tim Delaney
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4