On Sat, Jun 21, 2008, "Martin v. L??wis" wrote: > > In general, any solution of the "do GC less often" needs to deal with > cases where lots of garbage gets produced in a short amount of time > (e.g. in a tight loop), and which run out of memory when GC is done less > often. > > Given the choice of "run slower" and "run out of memory", Python should > always prefer the former.
I'm not sure I agree with this. GC IIRC was introduced primarily to alleviate *long-term* memory starvation. You are now IMO adding a new goal for GC that has not been previously articulated. I believe this requires consensus rather than a simple declaration of principle. Guido's opinion if he has one obviously overrules. ;-) Guido? -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "as long as we like the same operating system, things are cool." --piranha _______________________________________________ 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
