On 06/05/2011 17:51, Stefan Behnel wrote: > Mark Shannon, 06.05.2011 18:33: >> 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? >> >> It doesn't matter which is called first. > > May I quote you on that one the next time my software crashes? > Arbitrarily breaking cycles *could* cause a problem if a destructor attempts to access an already collected object. Not breaking cycles *definitely* leaks memory and definitely doesn't call finalizers. Michael > It may not make a difference for the runtime, but the difference for > user software may be "dead" or "alive". > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > 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