Author pitrou
Recipients gvanrossum, ncoghlan, pitrou
Date 2010-09-07.15:56:25
SpamBayes Score 5.47912e-11
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1283874980.3234.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <1283874416.49.0.75140900093.issue9757@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
> Given this explanation, of course I am +1 on an explicit release()
> method.  But I'm still skeptical that a context manager adds much (not
> sure if that counts as -0 or +0 :-).

Ok, release() is probably enough.

> I suppose after release() is called all accesses through the
> memoryview object should be invalid, right?

Indeed. The patch tests for that (it uses "with" to release the
memoryview, but it wouldn't be hard to change it for a release()
method).

> Is this not covered by PEP 3118 at all?

The PEP says “this memory view object holds on to the memory of base
[i.e. the object the buffer was acquired from] until it is deleted”.
Apparently issues pertaining to delayed garbage collection weren't
raised at the time.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-09-07 15:56:27pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, ncoghlan
2010-09-07 15:56:25pitroulinkissue9757 messages
2010-09-07 15:56:25pitroucreate