RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jun 21 18:17:42 CEST 2008 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-June/080573.html

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008, "Martin v. L??wis" wrote:
> 
> In general, any solution of the "do GC less often" needs to deal with
> cases where lots of garbage gets produced in a short amount of time
> (e.g. in a tight loop), and which run out of memory when GC is done less
> often.
> 
> Given the choice of "run slower" and "run out of memory", Python should
> always prefer the former.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  GC IIRC was introduced primarily to
alleviate *long-term* memory starvation.  You are now IMO adding a new
goal for GC that has not been previously articulated.  I believe this
requires consensus rather than a simple declaration of principle.

Guido's opinion if he has one obviously overrules.  ;-)  Guido?
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"as long as we like the same operating system, things are cool." --piranha

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-June/080573.html below:

[Python-Dev] C API for gc.enable() and gc.disable()