Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Armin, On 04.09.2015 02:29, Armin Rigo wrote: Hi Valentine, On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Valentine Sinitsyn wrote: That does not make it ok to have del called several time, does it? That's a tricky question. If the Python documentation now says

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Armin, On 25.08.2015 13:00, Armin Rigo wrote: Hi Valentine, On 25 August 2015 at 09:56, Valentine Sinitsyn wrote: Yes, I think so. There is a *highly obscure* corner case: __del__ will still be called several times if you declare your class with

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Maciej, On 04.09.2015 00:08, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Valentine Sinitsyn wrote: Hi Armin, On 25.08.2015 13:00, Armin Rigo wrote: Hi Valentine, On 25 August 2015 at 09:56, Valentine Sinitsyn

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Valentine Sinitsyn wrote: > Hi Armin, > > On 25.08.2015 13:00, Armin Rigo wrote: >> >> Hi Valentine, >> >> On 25 August 2015 at 09:56, Valentine Sinitsyn >> wrote: Yes, I think so. There is a

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Valentine, On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Valentine Sinitsyn wrote: >> That does not make it ok to have del called several time, does it? > > That's a tricky question. If the Python documentation now says something like ``the __del__ method is never called more

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Armin, On 25.08.2015 12:51, Armin Rigo wrote: Hi Valentine, On 24 August 2015 at 20:43, Valentine Sinitsyn valentine.sinit...@gmail.com wrote: So you mean that this was to keep things backwards compatible for third-party extensions? I haven't thought about it this way, but this makes

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Armin, On 25.08.2015 13:00, Armin Rigo wrote: Hi Valentine, On 25 August 2015 at 09:56, Valentine Sinitsyn valentine.sinit...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think so. There is a *highly obscure* corner case: __del__ will still be called several times if you declare your class with __slots__=().

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Valentine, On 24 August 2015 at 20:43, Valentine Sinitsyn valentine.sinit...@gmail.com wrote: So you mean that this was to keep things backwards compatible for third-party extensions? I haven't thought about it this way, but this makes sense. However, the behavior of Python code using

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Valentine, On 25 August 2015 at 09:56, Valentine Sinitsyn valentine.sinit...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I think so. There is a *highly obscure* corner case: __del__ will still be called several times if you declare your class with __slots__=(). Even on post-PEP-0442 Python 3.4+? Could you

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Armin, Thanks for replying. On 23.08.2015 17:14, Armin Rigo wrote: Hi Valentine, On 19 August 2015 at 09:53, Valentine Sinitsyn valentine.sinit...@gmail.com wrote: why it wasn't possible to implement proposed CI disposal scheme on top of tp_del? I'm replying here as best as I understand

Re: [Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi Valentine, On 19 August 2015 at 09:53, Valentine Sinitsyn valentine.sinit...@gmail.com wrote: why it wasn't possible to implement proposed CI disposal scheme on top of tp_del? I'm replying here as best as I understand the situation, which might be incomplete or wrong. From the point of

[Python-Dev] tp_finalize vs tp_del sematics

Hi everybody, I'm trying to get sense of PEP-0442 [1]. Most of the looks clear, however I wasn't able to answer myself one simple question: why it wasn't possible to implement proposed CI disposal scheme on top of tp_del? Common sense suggests that tp_del and tp_finalize have different