On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 2015 4:00 AM, "Cem Karan" <cfkar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2015, at 12:36 AM, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> > > wrote: > > > > > Cem Karan wrote: > > >> I think I see what you're talking about now. Does WeakMethod > > >> (https://docs.python.org/3/library/weakref.html#weakref.WeakMethod) solve > > >> this problem? > > > > > > Yes, that looks like it would work. > > > > > > Cool! > > Sometimes I wonder whether anybody reads my posts. I suggested a solution > involving WeakMethod four days ago that additionally extends the concept to > non-method callbacks (requiring a small amount of extra effort from the > client in those cases, but I think that is unavoidable. There is no way that > the framework can determine the appropriate lifetime for a closure-based > callback.)
I apologize about taking so long to reply to everyone's posts, but I've been busy at home. Ian, it took me a while to do some research to understand WHY what you were suggesting was important; you're right about storing the object as well as the method/function separately, but I think that WeakMethod might solve that completely, correct? Are there any cases where WeakMethod wouldn't work? Thanks, Cem Karan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
