On Nov 2, 2004, at 11:40 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
> a reachable callback can have visible effects, and there
> really isn't ambiguity about which of c and W "dies first" (c does) in
> the example.
An unreachable callback function can also have visible effects.
> The question is whether gc should really be looking at whether the
> weakref *callback* is reachable, regardless of whether the weakref
> itself is reachable (if the weakref is reachable, its callback is too,
> and 2.4b2 invokes it -- the only case in question is the one in the
> example, where the weakref and the weakref's referent are unreachable
> but the weakref's callback is reachable).
From what I'm hearing here, the following two pieces of code would then
have different behavior under patch-callback:
"""
def C_gone(ignored):
print "An object of type C went away."
class C:
def __init__(self):
self.wr = weakref.ref(self, C_gone)
"""
and
"""
class C:
def __init__(self):
def C_gone(ignored):
print "An object of type C went away."
self.wr = weakref.ref(self, C_gone)
"""
If that's correct, it sounds like a bad idea to me.
James
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