On Jun 11, 8:37 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 11, 2:15 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 2:01 pm, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 10:43 am, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 1:40 am, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The trick here is that calling proxy.sleep(0.01) first gets a strong > > > > > reference to the Mystery instance, then holds that strong reference > > > > > until it returns. > > > > > Ah, that was the missing part; I thought that anything accessed > > > > through a proxy didn't create a strong reference. The good thing is > > > > that it seems you can get a proxy to a bounded method and then call it > > > > without creating a strong reference to 'self': > > > > That's not right. Of course a bound method has a strong reference to > > > self, otherwise you'd never be able to call it. There must be > > > something else going on here. Try using sys.setcheckinterval(1) to > > > make threads switch more often. > > > I tried that and it still works; all objects die at the main thread. > > Any other idea to break it ? > > Nothing comes to mind. > > However, none of this is guaranteed anyway, so you can't rely on it. > __del__ might be called by any thread at any point (even when you're > holding a lock, updating a datastructure.)
Ok, you scared me enough to cut the link to the thread altogether, avoiding the cyclic reference and the weakref proxy. The original intent for keeping a reference to the thread was to be able to join() it later before some cleanup takes place. I have since found a less spooky way to synchronize them but regardless, I'd be interested for an explanation of what's really going on in the posted snippets. George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
