On 06/05/2011 17:32, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:18 AM,<s...@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.
Python being "broken" in this regard is pretty much exactly why
__enter__, __exit__ and with as context managers were added to the
language.
How does that help with cycles? Sure it makes cleaning up some resources
easier, but not at all this case. Explicit destruction is of course
always an alternative to the runtime doing it for you, but it doesn't
help with (for example) reclaiming memory. For long running processes
memory leaks due to unreclaimable cycles can be a problem with CPython.
That gives the ability to have the equivalent of well defined nested
scopes that destroy something (exit) deterministically much as it is
easy to do in C++ with some {}s and a ~destructor().
It is not broken, just different.
+1 QOTW ;-)
Michael
-gps
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@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
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
