On May 4, 2007, at 10:33 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > On 5/4/2007 4:21 PM, Michael Bayer wrote: > >>> >> why not encapsulate the "proper" weakref-based approach in an easy- >> to-use method such as "__close__()" ? that way nobody has to >> guess how to follow this pattern. > > Because the idea is that the callback of the weakref will *NOT* > hold a reference to the object being destroyed, but only to the > resources that need to be deallocated (that is, to the objects > bound as attributes of the object).
a __close__() method on a class is first bound to the class, not any particular self. the Python runtime could detect this and create the appropriate callable/weakref scenario behind the scenes; not even binding __close__() to the self in the usual way. obviously it cant be a pure python solution, it would have to be a specific runtime supported idea (the same way __metaclass__ or any other magic attribute is supported). i just dont understand why such an important feature would have to be relegated to just a "recipe". i think thats a product of the notion that "implicit finalizers are bad, use try/finally". thats not really valid for things like buffers that flush and database/network connections that must be released when they fall out of scope. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
