Author ncoghlan
Recipients jcon, kermode, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, pv, rupole, skrah, teoliphant, vstinner
Date 2011-07-05.14:37:01
SpamBayes Score 4.11951e-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
2011-07-05 14:37:02ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, teoliphant, mark.dickinson, rupole, kermode, pitrou, vstinner, pv, skrah, jcon, petri.lehtinen
2011-07-05 14:37:02ncoghlansetmessageid: <1309876622.69.0.995707608745.issue10181@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-07-05 14:37:02ncoghlanlinkissue10181 messages
2011-07-05 14:37:01ncoghlancreate