On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:52:30 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message <pan.2009.06.16.07.34...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au>, > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:45:43 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In message <m2eitowaf2....@cs.uu.nl>, Piet van Oostrum wrote: >>> >>>> The exact time of the destruction of objects is an implementation >>>> detail and should not be relied upon. >>> >>> That may be true in Java and other corporate-herd-oriented languages, >>> but we know that dynamic languages like Perl and Python make heavy use >>> of reference-counting wherever they can. If it's easy to satisfy >>> yourself that the lifetime of an object will be delimited in this way, >>> I don't see why you can't rely upon it. >> >> Reference counting is an implementation detail used by CPython but not >> [implementations built on runtimes designed for corporate-herd-oriented >> languages, like] IronPython or Jython. > > I rest my case.
CLPython and Unladen Swallow do not use reference counting. I suppose you might successfully argue that Lisp is a corporate-herd-oriented language, and that Google (the company behind Unladen Swallow) is a corporate-herd. But PyPy doesn't use reference counting either. Perhaps you think that Python is a language designed for corporate-herds too? -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
