Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There is no guarantee about the order in which objects are returned
> from a guardian. If you want to impose an order on finalization
> actions, for example, you can do that by keeping objects alive in
> some global data structure
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (I am a bit worried right now that the 'obvious' approach of putting
> FOO and BAR into a weak key hashtable with FOO as the key and BAR as
> the value does conflict a bit with my original goal of breaking up
> cycles from strong values to weak keys. W
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you do, you would need to take care of the ordering yourself, which
>> is quite easy by keeping objects alive in a global data structure
>> until they are no longer needed.
>
> Not sure what you mean by this, though. How would this generate an
> order
Marius Vollmer wrote:
>
> So, do you rely on this ordering guarantee?
No, my uses of guardians don't rely on this.
Also I'm pretty sure that I'd expect any object added to a guardian to
be returned when that object becomes inaccessible. If cycles can make
this untrue, even when the whole cycle
