Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote: > Objects which should be closed deterministically have the closing > action decoupled from the lifetime of the object.
That doesn't cover the case where the "closing" action you want includes freeing the memory occupied by the object. The game I mentioned earlier is one of those -- I don't need anything "closed", I just want the memory They are closed > explicitly; the object in a "closed" state doesn't take up any > sensitive resources. > > >>I just think that it's important to remember that there are use >>cases that reference counting solves. GC and refcounting both have >>their pros and cons. > > > Unfortunately it's hard to mix the two styles. Counting all reference > operations in the presence of a real GC would imply paying the costs > of both schemes together. > > >>I tend to think that Python's current refcounting + cyclic gc is the >>devil we know, so unless there is a clear, proven better way I'm not >>eager to change it. > > > They are different sets of tradeoffs; neither is universally better. > I claim that a tracing GC is usually better, or better in overall, > but it can't be proven to be better in all respects. > > Changing an existing system creates more compatibility obstacles than > designing a system from scratch. I'm not convinced that it's practical > to change the Python GC now. I only wish it had a tracing GC instead. > _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
