[Andrew Kuchling] > Hm... hmmmm... fixing this has been suggested before, but always > foundered on the fact that creating a closure required a cycle, which > would leak memory. Now we have an optional GC that should handle > this, so maybe fixing it can be revisited. (But this would mean that > GC is essentially no longer optional -- maybe too radical a thing to > do before we're sure about the new GC. 2.1, maybe?) Definitely PEP material: let's please, please, please not have this entire debate again. BTW, I'm having trouble believing the release schedule for 1.6 and 2.0 without this, so definitely post-2.0 on those grounds alone.
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