Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Python" doesn't *have* any refcounting semantics.
I'm not convinced that Python has *any* semantics at all outside of specific implementations. It has never been standardized to the rigor of your typical barely-readable language standards document. > If you rely on the behavior of CPython's memory allocation and > garbage collection you run the risk of producing programs that won't > port tp Jython, or IronPython, or PyPy, or ... > This is a trade-off that many users *are* willing to make. Yes, I have no interest at the moment in trying to make my code portable between every possible implementation of Python, since I have no idea what features such implementations may or may not support. When I code in Python, I'm coding for CPython. In the future, I may do some stuff in Jython, but I wouldn't call it "Python" -- it'd call it "Jython". When I do code for Jython, I'd be using it to get to Java libraries that would make my code non-portable to CPython, so portability here seems to be a red herring. |>oug -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
