2010/7/22 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>: > Le jeudi 22 juillet 2010 à 07:23 -0500, Benjamin Peterson a écrit : >> 2010/7/22 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>: >> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:51:57 +0100 >> > Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> That's an option. I just remember Tim bringing up something about that >> >> approach that didn't quite work as a complete replacement for __del__. >> >> >> >> Basically the whole setting a module's globals to None was done before gc >> >> came into the language. Now that it's there it seems that it might work to >> >> simply let gc clean up the module itself. >> > >> > There is a patch at http://bugs.python.org/issue812369 for GC-based >> > module shutdown, but it doesn't actually remove the setting of module >> > globals to None. I think further testing and experimentation would be >> > required to validate it. >> >> Also, it seems to have been stalled by static globals in extension >> modules that the gc doesn't know about. > > Is it the reason why? With the new module creation API in 3.x, extension > modules should be able to handle deletion of their own internal > resources. Well, then the reason is that no modules use it. I also believe the new API is dangerous because modules can be deallocated before objects in them resulting in segfaults when those objects require globals stored in the module state. -- Regards, Benjamin
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