--- On Tue, 10/26/10, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>>> I think this then mandates a PEP; I'm -1 on the feature also.
>>
>> I am happy to write up a PEP for this feature. I'll start that
>> process now, though if anyone feels that this idea has no chance of
>> acceptance please let me know.
>
> If it could actually work in a reasonable way, I would be +0. If,
> as I think, it can't possibly work correctly, I'll be -1.
>
> In this evaluation, I compare this to Smalltalk's
> Object>>#become:
> What you propose should have a similar effect, IMO, although
> it's probably not necessary to provide the two-way nature
> of become.
Thanks, I didn't know about Object>>#become until now but it
is a perfect comparison. The two-way nature of become appears to
be due to the implementation detail of swapping two entries in a
table, but the current spec for gc.remap can achieve the same effect
with:
>>> gc.remap({a:b, b:a})
Of course #become and gc.remap also share the same power and danger.
I'm retracting the patch in 10194 and will submit a new one later
as part of the PEP that uses a parallel traverse mechanism. Still,
if you are concerned that this approach cannot work I encourage you
to try out the patch associated with 10194 by playing around with
gc.remap in the interpreter or looking at the unit tests. I was
surprised when I made the change initially by how little code was
required and by how well it seemed to work in practice.
Thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
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
