I already admitted that it is implementation specific whether one would
talk of resurrection, even in one and the same scenario. (Although
I would prefer to agree on an abstract notion of the resurrection term.)
If Jython does things differently, then certainly its behaviour is
incompatible with the common expectations of Python developers.
Guido recently pointed out that it is allowed for different Python
implementations to alter details of gc behavior. (And I suppose this
was more a reminder of already common consensus.)
However I agree that some aspects could be improved and I am looking
at it. So far I have all answers I needed. Thanks for the discussion!
-Stefan
On 10/27/2014 05:36 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:23:23 +0100
Stefan Richthofer <stefan.richtho...@gmx.de> wrote:
You mean Jython deletes instance attributes before calling __del__ ?
No. I think the term of "object resurrection" usually does not mean bringing
back a deleted object in the sense that memory was already freed.
I think it rather means that nothing referred to an object, so it was on the
"kill-list" of gc or zero-ref-count macro.
"x2" does *not* have its refcount drop to zero, since it is still
referenced by x. In other words, "x2" can only be on a "kill list"
after "x" has been finalized, which can only be *after* __del__ was
executed.
If Jython does things differently, then certainly its behaviour is
incompatible with the common expectations of Python developers.
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/stefan.richthofer%40gmx.de
_______________________________________________
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
