Message269596
> This doesn't work when COM objects have to be kept around. In the AMSI case...
OK, so that's a limitation. Is there any *other* use case for keeping COM objects (that are created by the core) around? If not, then like it or not, this is a problem for AMSI, not for a general "initialise COM" proposal.
Basically, I'm saying that it's only worth splitting this proposal out from the AMSI one if there's a benefit (to offset the costs) for code other than AMSI. And there seems to be no such use case. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-06-30 16:27:24 | paul.moore | set | recipients:
+ paul.moore, mhammond, brett.cannon, tim.golden, zach.ware, eryksun, steve.dower, nnemkin |
2016-06-30 16:27:24 | paul.moore | set | messageid: <1467304044.17.0.773510185629.issue27417@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-06-30 16:27:24 | paul.moore | link | issue27417 messages |
2016-06-30 16:27:24 | paul.moore | create | |
|