Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: >> While a strong argument can be made that the remaining 2.x versions should >> not be changed, they do not apply to 3.x. New code and ported old code >> should use 'with' wherever quick closing needs to be guaranteed. The 3.0 >> manual clearly states "An implementation is allowed to postpone garbage >> collection or omit it altogether " > > I would hope the 2.x manual says the same, since that same assumption > has been around explicitly ever since JPython was first introduced. Yes. It was changed a bit when gc was added. > I'm not sure we should exempt 2.x from these changes (though if only > 3.x could be made twice as fast it would of course encourage people to > upgrade... :-). ;-) If the issue became real, one could ask 2.x users which they prefer, compatability or speed. I have no opinion since my concern is with 3.x. >> OK, it also goes on to say "(Implementation note: the current implementation >> uses a reference-counting scheme with (optional) delayed detection of >> cyclically linked garbage,...)" I think the first part should at least be >> amended to 'the current CPython implementation' or 'the CPython >> implementation currently' or even better 'one current implementation >> (CPython)' and a warning added "But this may change" and "is not true of all >> implementaions" if that is not made clear otherwise. > > True. http://bugs.python.org/issue5039 tjr
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