Message139875
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
jcon, kermode, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, pv, rupole, skrah, teoliphant, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年07月05日.14:37:01 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.1195125e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1309876622.69.0.995707608745.issue10181@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Moving this discussion out of the review comments:
Antoine is wanting to make release() nondeterministic by having the underlying buffer only released when all views using it either have release() called or are no longer referenced.
I contend that release() needs to mean "release the underlying memory *right now*" or it is completely pointless. The "I don't want to care about lifecycle issues" approach is already handled quite adequately by the ordinary refcounting semantics.
If ensuring that all references have been eliminated before release() is called is too much work for a user then the answer is simple: don't call release() and let the refcounting do the work. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年07月05日 14:37:02 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, teoliphant, mark.dickinson, rupole, kermode, pitrou, vstinner, pv, skrah, jcon, petri.lehtinen |
| 2011年07月05日 14:37:02 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1309876622.69.0.995707608745.issue10181@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年07月05日 14:37:02 | ncoghlan | link | issue10181 messages |
| 2011年07月05日 14:37:01 | ncoghlan | create |
|