On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> No no no. It's the other way around. _Something_ has to be doing those >> callbacks, and it's that _something_ that should be keeping them >> alive. The fact that it's a registered callback should itself *be* a >> reference (and not a weak reference), and should keep it alive. > > That's much more reasonable than what you said earlier: > > it seems wrong to have to stash a thing in a bucket in order > to keep its callbacks alive. I expect the callbacks themselves to > keep it alive. > > > So yes. If I bind a callback to a button, say, or a listener, then the > button (or listener) keeps the callback alive, *not* the callback keeping > the button or listener alive.
I meant the same thing, but my terminology was poor. Yes, that's correct; it's not any sort of magic about it being a callback, but more that the one you register it with becomes the owner of something. Hence, no weak references. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
