On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:33:58 -0500, Xie <xiema...@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, this actually makes sense to me.
It's a manifestation of this issue:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3929
I'm think - it's truth but not at all.
Sorry, but i'm give incomplete data.
My example run fine, when benchmark(1), (2), but not 10.
This means, that memory not collected _between_ calls.
Yes, this is what the bug report is about -- the memory is not collected
even though there are no references left, because the cache used to speed
up appending still has a reference.
-Steve
