On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-03-08 16:30 GMT+01:00 Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com>: >> How about fixing cyclic gc to deal with __del__ instead? That sounds >> like an awful change to the semantics. > > Hum? That's the purpose of the PEP 442 which is implemented in Python 3.4. > > As I wrote, it's not enough to fix all issues. > > Usually, I see an explicit call to gc.collect() as a workaround to a > deeper issue. I prefer to modify my program to run smoothly without > explict garbage collection. > > That's why I would prefer to avoid creating reference cycles from the > beginning. > > Victor
It was agreed long time ago that the immediate finalization is an implementation specific detail and it's not guaranteed. You should not rely on __del__s being called timely one way or another. Why would you require this for the program to work correctly in the particular example of __traceback__? Cheers, fijal _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
