On Jun 29, 3:36 pm, Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > eyal.lotem+pyutils <at> gmail.com <eyal.lotem <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > That would be no worse than what happens now - but its still not > > perfect (__del__ ordering issues). Also, you would need to temporarily > > revive the cycles as mentioned above (to avoid accessibility of > > partially destructed objects). > > The idea is to call all __del__'s *before* any object in the cycle is > deallocated (that is, call them manually rather than as part of deallocating > them). That way you shouldn't have the issues mentioned above.
Firstly, as I said above: you will still have __del__ ordering issues. Secondly, the destructor itself currently calls __del__, so if you call __del__ before any deallocation, it will get called again as part of the deallocation. Might be a technicality but it will still probably require some code restructuring to work around (or making that code even more hairy). > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED]://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe:http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/python-dev2-garchiv... _______________________________________________ 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
