I don't know the answer to this, but what are some examples of objects where you never change the refcount? Are these Python objects? If so, wouldn't doing something like adding the object to a list necessarily change its refcount, since the list implementation only knows, "I have a reference to this object, I must increase the reference count", and it doesn't know that the object doesn't need its reference count changed?
Best, Paul On 4/28/20 2:38 PM, Jim J. Jewett wrote: > Why do sub-interpreters require (separate and) heap-allocated types? > > It seems types that are statically allocated are a pretty good use for > immortal objects, where you never change the refcount ... and then I don't > see why you need more than one copy. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ > Message archived at > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/S674C2BJ7NHKB3SOJF4VFRXVNQDNSCHP/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/J64VIJPXBCR7DQPDFSZWTLRVIYGCXYPF/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
