Paul Rubin wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > (1) I think is here to stay, if you're going to tell programmers that > > their destructors can't make program-visible changes (e.g. closing the > > database connection when a dbconn is destroyed), that's a _huge_ change > > from current practice that needs serious debate. > > We had that debate already (PEP 343). Yes, there is some sloppy > current practice by CPython users that relies on the GC to close the > db conn.
This point is unrelated to with or ref-counting. Even the standard library will close file objects when they are GC'd. If this is not acceptable, it's a major change; that's why I say (1) is here to stay. But I think we're misunderstanding each other somehow on this point (I don't think you're saying that the standard library is sloppily coded in this regard), I just don't know how. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
