Guido van Rossum added the comment: So you are changing your mind and withdrawing your option #1.
I don't have the time to really dig deeply into the example app and what's going on. If you want to help, you can try to come up with a patch (and it should have good unit tests). I'll be on vacation most of this week. On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Marco Paolini <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Marco Paolini added the comment: > > Asking the user to manage strong refs is just passing the potential > leak issue outside of the standard library. It doesn't really solve > anything. > > If the user gets the strong refs wrong he can either lose tasks or > leak memory. > > If the standard library gets it right, both issues are avoided. > > > I'm all in favor of documenting that you must keep a strong reference to > a > > task that you want to keep alive. I'm not keen on automatically keep all > > tasks alive, that might exacerbate leaks (which are by definition hard to > find) in existing programs. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue21163> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21163> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
