Paul Prescod wrote: > > Phil Thompson wrote: > > > >... > > > > To be honest, I don't see why weak references have been implemented as a > > bolt-on module that only supports one particular object type. The thing > > I most like about the Python implementation is how consistent it is. > > Weak references should be implemented for every object type - even for > > None - you never know when it might come in useful. > > Weak references add a pointer to each object. This could add up for > (e.g.) integers. The idea is that you only pay the cost of weak > references for objects that you would actually create weak references > to. Yes I know, and I'm suggesting that people will always find extra uses for things which the original designers hadn't thought of. Better to be consistent (and allow weak references to anything) than try and anticipate (wrongly) how people might want to use it in the future - although I appreciate that the implementation cost might be too high. Perhaps the question should be "what types make no sense with weak references" and exclude them rather than "what types might be able to use weak references" and include them. Having said that, my only immediate requirement is to allow weak refences to functions, and I'd be happy if only that was implemented. Phil
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