On Jun 29, 3:36 pm, Antoine Pitrou <solip... at pitrou.net> wrote: > eyal.lotem+pyutils <at> gmail.com <eyal.lotem <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > That would be no worse than what happens now - but its still not > > perfect (__del__ ordering issues). Also, you would need to temporarily > > revive the cycles as mentioned above (to avoid accessibility of > > partially destructed objects). > > The idea is to call all __del__'s *before* any object in the cycle is > deallocated (that is, call them manually rather than as part of deallocating > them). That way you shouldn't have the issues mentioned above. Firstly, as I said above: you will still have __del__ ordering issues. Secondly, the destructor itself currently calls __del__, so if you call __del__ before any deallocation, it will get called again as part of the deallocation. Might be a technicality but it will still probably require some code restructuring to work around (or making that code even more hairy). > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-... at python.orghttp://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe:http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev2-garchiv...
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