Robert Ledwith <rledwith@cas.org> writes: > I do not believe my experiences will prove to be unique among the Python > community. Given this possibility, is it desirable to re-insert the > logic to make the cyclic GC optional now, heading off potential problems > that would surface only months from now, once Python 2.3 is officially rolled > out and installed worldwide? I'm not fully aware of all the issues, but I think that the interaction between the sometimes-there-sometimes-not gc code and the trashcan facility for safely deallocating deeply nested structures was deeply confusing and was a motivation for making the GC code non-optional. So desirable or not, re-adding --without-cycle-gc may be *hard*. Cheers, M. -- It's a measure of how much I love Python that I moved to VA, where if things don't work out Guido will buy a plantation and put us to work harvesting peanuts instead. -- Tim Peters, comp.lang.python
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