[Tim] > I'm not sure why, but there's a widespread intransigent belief that > it's somehow purer to say "del" for freeing memory that happened to > hold an object. I'm the origin of this convention; it was part of Python 0.0. Switching from [m]alloc/free to new/del was *not* to differentiate between mere blobs of memory and objects; it was to indicate that these macros and functions were a layer on top of malloc/free. (Originally, they merely changed the signature around a bit.) The new/del names are partly borrowed from C++, where new and delete are the memory (de)allocation operators as well as the object (de)allocation operators. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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