[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If your program's behavior is: > > * allocate a list of 1e7 ints > * delete that list > > how does the Python interpreter know your next bit of execution won't be > to repeat the allocation?
It doesn't know, but if the program runs for a while without repeating it, it's a fair bet that it won't mind waiting the next time it does a big allocation. How long 'a while' is would obviously be open to debate. > In addition, checking to see that an arena in > the free list can be freed is itself not a free operation. > (snip thorough explanation) Yes, that's a good point. It looks like the list is designed for speedy re-use of the memory it points to, which seems like a good choice. I quite agree that it should hang on to *some* memory, and perhaps my artificial situation has shown this as a problem when it wouldn't cause any issues for real programs. I can't help thinking that there are some situations where you need a lot of memory for a short time though, and it would be nice to be able to use it briefly and then hand most of it back. Still, I see the practical difficulties with doing this. -- I'm at CAMbridge, not SPAMbridge -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
