andrew cooke wrote: > Aaron Brady wrote: >> On Mar 21, 7:54 am, "andrew cooke" <and...@acooke.org> wrote: >>> they should not be used to do things like flushing and closing >>> files, for example. >> What is your basis for this claim, if it's not the mere unreliability >> of finalization? IOW, are you not merely begging the question? > > I'm not sure it's clear, but I was talking about Java.
crap. i meant to say INdeterministic. sorry, i am in a foul mood (for completely unrelated reasons) and probably shouldn't be making posts to a public newsgroup. andrew > As Paul implied, a consequence of completely automated garbage management > is that it is (from a programmer's POV) deterministic. So it's a > programming error to rely on the finalizer to free resources that don't > follow that model (ie any resource that's anything other that reasonable > amounts of memory). > > That's pretty much an unavoidable consequence of fully automated garbage > collection. You can pretend it's not, and try using finalizers for other > work if you want. That's fine - it's your code, not mine. I'm just > explaining how life is. > > Andrew > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
