On 9/28/06, tomer filiba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm sceptical that these would find use in practice. > > [..] > > Also, I question the utility of maintaining a weakref to a method or > > attribute instead of holding one for the object or class. As long as > > the enclosing object or class lives, so too will their methods and > > attributes. So what is the point of a tighter weakref granualarity? > > i didn't just came up with them "out of boredom", i have had specific > use cases for these, mainly in rpyc3000... but since the rpyc300 > code base is still far from completion, i don't want to give examples > at this early stage. > > however, these two are theoretically useful, so i refactored them out > of my code into recipes.
I've had use cases for "weakrefs to boundmethods" (and there IS a Cookbook recipe for them), as follows: sometimes I'm maintaining a container of callables, which may be of various kinds including functions, boundmethods, etc; but I'd like the mere presence of a callable in the container not to keep the callable alive (especially when the callable in turn keeps alive an object with possibly massive state). In practice I use wrapping and tricks, but it would be nice to have cleaner standard library support for this. (Often the container needs to be some form of a Queue.Queue, since queues of callables are a form I use very often to dispatch work requests to worker-threads in a threadpool). Alex _______________________________________________ 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
