Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 2017-08-05, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > On 08/05/2017 03:21 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> so the object's lifetime shouldn't matter to you. > > I disagree with this most strongly. That's only true when the > machine resources being consumed by your Python object are small in >

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 08/05/2017 05:36 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On 8/5/17 5:41 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> On 08/05/2017 11:16 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote: >>> It uses >>> reference counting, so most objects are reclaimed immediately when their >>> reference count goes to zero, such as at the end of local scopes. >>

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 08/05/2017 05:36 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On 8/5/17 5:41 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> On 08/05/2017 11:16 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote: >>> It uses >>> reference counting, so most objects are reclaimed immediately when their >>> reference count goes to zero, such as at the end of local scopes. >>

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 08/05/2017 05:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> On 08/05/2017 03:21 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> After a 'with' block, >>> the object *still exists*, but it has been "exited" in some way >>> (usually by closing/releasing

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 08/05/2017 05:58 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: >> On 08/05/2017 03:21 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >>> After a 'with' block, >>> the object *still exists*, but it has been "exited" in some way >>> (usually by closing/releasing

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > On 08/05/2017 03:21 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> After a 'with' block, >> the object *still exists*, but it has been "exited" in some way >> (usually by closing/releasing an underlying resource). > > The containing object

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 8/5/17 5:41 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > On 08/05/2017 11:16 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote: >> It uses >> reference counting, so most objects are reclaimed immediately when their >> reference count goes to zero, such as at the end of local scopes. > Given this code: > > class SomeObject: > . >

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 2017-08-05 22:41, Tim Daneliuk wrote: On 08/05/2017 11:16 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote: It uses reference counting, so most objects are reclaimed immediately when their reference count goes to zero, such as at the end of local scopes. Given this code: class SomeObject: . for foo

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

Tim Daneliuk : > Are you saying that each time a,b,c are reassigned to new instances of > SomeObject the old instance counts go to 0 and are immediately - as in > synchronously, right now, on the spot - removed from memory? That depends on the implementation of Python.

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 08/05/2017 11:16 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote: > It uses > reference counting, so most objects are reclaimed immediately when their > reference count goes to zero, such as at the end of local scopes. Given this code: class SomeObject: . for foo in somelist: a = SomeObject(foo) b

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 08/05/2017 03:21 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > After a 'with' block, > the object *still exists*, but it has been "exited" in some way > (usually by closing/releasing an underlying resource). The containing object exists, but the things that the closing logic explicitly released do not. In some

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > On 08/04/2017 07:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> Again, don't stress about exactly when objects get >> disposed of; it doesn't matter. > > > Respectfully, I disagree strongly. Objects get build on the heap and > persist

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 8/5/17 11:23 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote: > On 08/04/2017 07:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> Again, don't stress about exactly when objects get >> disposed of; it doesn't matter. > > Respectfully, I disagree strongly. Objects get build on the heap and > persist even when they go out of scope until

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed

On 8/4/17 7:42 PM, Jon Forrest wrote: > On 8/4/2017 4:34 PM, gst wrote: >> 'two' is a so called constant or literal value .. (of that >> function). >> >> Why not attach it, as a const value/object, to the function itself ? >> So that a new string object has not to be created each time the >>

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

Tim Daneliuk : > On 08/04/2017 07:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> Again, don't stress about exactly when objects get disposed of; it >> doesn't matter. > > Respectfully, I disagree strongly. Objects get build on the heap and > persist even when they go out of scope until such

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On 08/04/2017 07:00 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > Again, don't stress about exactly when objects get > disposed of; it doesn't matter. Respectfully, I disagree strongly. Objects get build on the heap and persist even when they go out of scope until such time garbage collection takes place. This

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed

On 8/4/2017 7:11 PM, Jon Forrest wrote: Consider the following Python shell session (Python 3.6.2, Win64): >>> def givemetwo(): ... x = 'two' ... print(id(x)) ... >>> givemetwo() 1578505988392 So far fine. My understanding of object existence made me think that the object

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 09:11 am, Jon Forrest wrote: > Consider the following Python shell session (Python 3.6.2, Win64): > > >>> def givemetwo(): > ... x = 'two' > ... print(id(x)) > ... > >>> givemetwo() > 1578505988392 > > So far fine. My understanding of object existence made

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Jon Forrest wrote: > Perhaps the reason the variable isn't destroyed is > shown by the following (again, in the same session): > import sys sys.getrefcount(1578505988392) > 3 > > So, maybe it's not destroyed because there are still >

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Jon Forrest wrote: > On 8/4/2017 4:34 PM, gst wrote: >> >> 'two' is a so called constant or literal value .. (of that >> function). >> >> Why not attach it, as a const value/object, to the function itself ? >> So that a new string object has not

Question About When Objects Are Destroyed (continued)

Perhaps the reason the variable isn't destroyed is shown by the following (again, in the same session): >>> import sys >>> sys.getrefcount(1578505988392) 3 So, maybe it's not destroyed because there are still references to it. But, what are these references? Will the reference count ever go to

Re: Question About When Objects Are Destroyed

On 8/4/2017 4:34 PM, gst wrote: 'two' is a so called constant or literal value .. (of that function). Why not attach it, as a const value/object, to the function itself ? So that a new string object has not to be created each time the function is called. Because anyway strings are immutable. So

Question About When Objects Are Destroyed

'two' is a so called constant or literal value .. (of that function). Why not attach it, as a const value/object, to the function itself ? So that a new string object has not to be created each time the function is called. Because anyway strings are immutable. So what would be the point to

Question About When Objects Are Destroyed

Consider the following Python shell session (Python 3.6.2, Win64): >>> def givemetwo(): ... x = 'two' ... print(id(x)) ... >>> givemetwo() 1578505988392 So far fine. My understanding of object existence made me think that the object referred to by x would be deleted when the