ai wrote:
Yes, you are right.
But from this problem, could I infer that the statement del xxx
doesn't release the memory which xxx used?
It just removes the name xxx from the current scope - which will result in a
reference counter decrease. If that was the last reference, the object will
be
thx
On Jun 1, 6:50 pm, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ai wrote:
Yes, you are right.
But from this problem, could I infer that the statement del xxx
doesn't release the memory which xxx used?
It just removes the name xxx from the current scope - which will result in a
It assumes that there is a module A which have two global variables X
and Y. If I run import A in the IDLE shell, then I can use A.X and
A.Y correctly. But if I want to change the module A and then delete
the variable Y, I find I can use A.Y just the same as before!
In fact, I have tried all the
ai schrieb:
It assumes that there is a module A which have two global variables X
and Y. If I run import A in the IDLE shell, then I can use A.X and
A.Y correctly. But if I want to change the module A and then delete
the variable Y, I find I can use A.Y just the same as before!
In fact, I
ai a écrit :
It assumes that there is a module A which have two global variables X
and Y. If I run import A in the IDLE shell, then I can use A.X and
A.Y correctly. But if I want to change the module A and then delete
the variable Y, I find I can use A.Y just the same as before!
It's unlikely
Yes, you are right.
But from this problem, could I infer that the statement del xxx
doesn't release the memory which xxx used?
On May 31, 11:21 pm, Diez B. Roggisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ai schrieb:
It assumes that there is a module A which have two global variables X
and Y. If I run
Perhaps you misundstand me. I means if you reedit a module file and
reload it, the interpreter doesn't follow the change you have made
exactly.
For example, you import a module, edit the module file (you may
remove a global variable or change its name), save the change, reload
the module (or del
