Travis Oliphant wrote: > Because slicing NumPy array's already does it by holding on to a view, I > guess having an object that doesn't hold on to a view in Python but > "re-gets" it every time it is needed, would be useful.
I guess this problem doesn't arise in NumPy, because the size of the memory block doesn't change once the array is created, so locking isn't an issue. But in the more general case, I think it would be surprising if one object refused to carry out some operation just because of the existence of some other object. Also, keep in mind that dropping references to an object isn't a guarantee that it will be deallocated immediately, so there would need to be some kind of explicit closing operation on the view object, making things more messy. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
