Paul Rubin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>I looked at pep-0343, it looks interesting. It is not what I really
>>want (deterministic destruction)
>
>
> I think it's better.
>
>
>>As far as my comment about "mainstream" Python, I have always taken
>>CPython as "Python". I guess this w
Hi Paul,
> I didn't understand then. I thought by "deterministic destruction"
> you meant relying on what CPython does now, which is reference
> counting with destruction when the last reference is released.
I effectively do mean that. In C++ it is guaranteed that a destructor
will be called
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >> I looked at pep-0343, it looks interesting. It is not what I really
> >> want (deterministic destruction)
> >I think it's better.
> Is there something specific you have in mind that makes you say that?...
> Which, looks like you have a constructor (__enter__) and a d
Hi Paul,
>> I looked at pep-0343, it looks interesting. It is not what I really
>> want (deterministic destruction)
>
>I think it's better.
Is there something specific you have in mind that makes you say that?
I am not a python expert, so I probably do not understand all the
implications of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I looked at pep-0343, it looks interesting. It is not what I really
> want (deterministic destruction)
I think it's better.
> As far as my comment about "mainstream" Python, I have always taken
> CPython as "Python". I guess this will have to change as Jython and
>
Thanks to all who replied. This has definitely given me something to
chew on.
I looked at pep-0343, it looks interesting. It is not what I really
want (deterministic destruction) but it is a lot more than most GC'ed
languages give me (Java, I am looking at you... :-) ).
As far as my comment abo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Giving up deterministic destruction in Python would be a real blow for
> me, since it is one of its unique features among GC'ed languages.
>
> So what's the deal, can I rely on it in "mainstream" Python or am
> I out of luck here?
IMO you shouldn't rely on it. I belie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Giving up deterministic destruction in Python would be a real blow for
> me, since it is one of its unique features among GC'ed languages.
>
> So what's the deal, can I rely on it in "mainstream" Python or am
> I out of luck here?
Most people rely on that. I do that *a
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The problem is that other implementations of
> Python (Jython and IronPython) do not support deterministic
> destruction. So we are left with a problem: is deterministic
> destruction an implementation detail of CPython that can go a
I have been dabbling in Python for a while now. One of the things that
really appeals to me is that I can seem to be able to use C++-style
RAII idioms to deal with resource management issues.
For those that have no idea what I am talking about (I learn a lot
reading posts on subjects in which I a
10 matches
Mail list logo
