On 06/05/2011 17:18, skip at pobox.com wrote: > Antoine> Since we're sharing links, here's Matt Mackall's take: > Antoine> http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2011-May/031055.html > > > From that note: > > 1: You can't have meaningful destructors, because when destruction > happens is undefined. And going-out-of-scope destructors are extremely > useful. Python is already a rather broken in this regard, so feel free > to ignore this point. > > Given the presence of cyclic data I don't see how reference counting or > garbage collection win. Ignoring the fact that in a pure reference counted > system you won't even consider cycles for reclmation, would both RC and GC > have to punt because they can't tell which object's destructor to call > first? pypy and .NET choose to arbitrarily break cycles rather than leave objects unfinalised and memory unreclaimed. Not sure what Java does. All the best, Michael Foord > Skip > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
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