[Jim Fulton] > ... > There is no reason for __del__ to fail unless it depends on > cyclicly-related objects, which should be viewed as a design > mistake. > > OTOH, __del__ should never fail because module globals go away. > IMO, the current circular references involving module globals are > unnecessary, but that's a different topic. ;) IOW, you view "the current circular references involving module globals" as "a design mistake" <wink>. And perhaps they are! I wouldn't call it a different topic, though: so long as people are *viewing* shutdown __del__ problems as just another instance of finalizers in cyclic trash, it makes the latter *seem* inescapably "normal", and so something that has to be catered to. If you have a way to take the shutdown problems out of the discussion, it would help clarify both topics, at the very least by deconflating them. it's-a-mailing-list-so-no-need-to-stay-on-topic<wink>-ly y'rs - tim
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