Hi,
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:21:31 +0100 Victor Stinner <vstin...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Pablo's issue35378 evolved to add a weak reference in iterators to try > to detect when the Pool is destroyed: raise an exception from the > iterator, if possible. That's an ok fix for me. > By the way, I'm surprised that "with pool:" doesn't release all > resources. That's not a problem, as long as the destructor _does_ release resources. > From a technical point of view, I would prefer to become stricter. Using "with pool:" is fine, we shouldn't start raising a warning for it. What you are proposing here starts to smell like an anti-pattern to me. Python _is_ a garbage-collected language, so by definition, there _are_ going to be resources that are automatically collected when an object disappears. If I'm allocating a 2GB bytes object, then PyPy may delay the deallocation much longer than CPython. Do you propose we add a release() method to bytes objects to avoid this issue (and emit a warning for people who don't call release() on bytes objects)? You can't change the language's philosophy. We warn about open files because those have user-visible consequences (such as unflushed buffers, or not being able to delete the file on Windows). If there is no user-visible consequence to not calling join() on a Pool, then we shouldn't warn about it. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
