Guido: > Likewise, the file needs a strong ref to the xreadlines, otherwise the > following would create a new iterator in the second for loop, and lose > data buffered by the first iterator. To me, these problems are screaming out that the buffer *shouldn't* be kept in the xreadlines object! Maybe the xreadlines object's buffer should be kept in the file object? Then it wouldn't matter if multiple xreadlines objects were created, as they'd all share the same buffer, and there would be no reference loops. Hmmm... then we're moving towards making the file object and the xreadlines object be the same object. What was the reason for not doing that again? Was it just to avoid changing a lot of code, or was there some reason it wouldn't work? Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+ University of Canterbury, | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a | Christchurch, New Zealand | wholly-owned subsidiary of USA Inc. | greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz +--------------------------------------+
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