I already admitted that it is implementation specific whether one would talk of resurrection, even in one and the same scenario. (Although I would prefer to agree on an abstract notion of the resurrection term.) >If Jython does things differently, then certainly its behaviour is >incompatible with the common expectations of Python developers. Guido recently pointed out that it is allowed for different Python implementations to alter details of gc behavior. (And I suppose this was more a reminder of already common consensus.) However I agree that some aspects could be improved and I am looking at it. So far I have all answers I needed. Thanks for the discussion! -Stefan On 10/27/2014 05:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:23:23 +0100 > Stefan Richthofer <stefan.richthofer at gmx.de> wrote: >>> You mean Jython deletes instance attributes before calling __del__ ? >> No. I think the term of "object resurrection" usually does not mean bringing >> back a deleted object in the sense that memory was already freed. >> I think it rather means that nothing referred to an object, so it was on the >> "kill-list" of gc or zero-ref-count macro. > "x2" does *not* have its refcount drop to zero, since it is still > referenced by x. In other words, "x2" can only be on a "kill list" > after "x" has been finalized, which can only be *after* __del__ was > executed. > > If Jython does things differently, then certainly its behaviour is > incompatible with the common expectations of Python developers. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/stefan.richthofer%40gmx.de
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