In article <mailman.6313.1391383680.18130.python-l...@python.org>, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you see here is proof that Python really does need an explicit > destroy() function. It would need to recycle the object [1], forcing > all references to it to dangle: > > >>> a = object() > >>> b = a > >>> destroy(a) > >>> c = b > > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<pyshell#89>", line 1, in <module> > c = b > SegmentationError: dereferencing a dangling pointer > > It's a serious lack in Python. Currently it's not possible to do this > without fiddling around in ctypes. > > ChrisA > > [1] Scrub the RAM clean and return it to the computer, put the 1 bits > onto the stack for subsequent reuse, and throw all the useless 0 bits > out onto the heap. I'm reasonably sure you posted this as humor, but there is some truth in what you said. In the crypto/security domain, you often want to keep a key or cleartext around only for the time it's needed, and scrub the memory it was occupying as soon as it is no longer in use. I don't know how you would do that in Python. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list