On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 20:56:56 -0700 "Gregory P. Smith" <g...@krypto.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 10:37 AM Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 10:18:47 -0700 > > Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > > But when I leave "large" temp objects hanging and > > > > give a rip, I already stick in "del" statements anyway. Very rarely, > > > > but it happens. > > > > > > > > > > I recall that in the development of asyncio there were a few places where > > > we had to insert del statements, not so much to free a chunk of memory, > > but > > > to cause some destructor or finalizer to run early enough. (IIRC not > > right > > > at that moment, but at some later moment even if some Futures are still > > > alive.) Those issues took considerable effort to find, and would > > > conceivably have been prevented by this proposal. > > > > If code relies on life variable analysis for correctness, it implies > > other Python implementations must implement it with exactly the same > > results. > > > > As far as I know they all do? The existence of locals() as an API cements > this behavior. If you want something to disappear from locals it requires > an explicit del. (explicit is better than implicit and all...) I mean all Python implementations would have to implement the exact same variant of live variable analysis. Right now there is none: variables are deleted when the frame dies (or when `del x` is issued explicitly, which does not imply any analysis :-)). Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/FUIKBACY3C3TY23FCBXBEOOOBHAB5LXG/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
