This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author martin.panter
Recipients josh.r, martin.panter, mwh, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, shredwheat, squidevil
Date 2016-05-16.02:06:22
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Is it really a problem if the old value is deallocated? It sounds like a similar case to <>, and would only be a problem if you passed a borrowed reference, and relied on the reference staying alive for another argument.

I do like the separate do_ignore() function in patch 4, but I don’t think it is worthwhile allocating a temporary tuple to save values in. The allocation can fail. Also, I understand do_mktuple() etc are recursive, so nested borrowed references would still be released before the outer do_ignore() function releases the outer tuple.
Date User Action Args
2016-05-16 02:06:24martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter, mwh, rhettinger, shredwheat, serhiy.storchaka, josh.r, squidevil
2016-05-16 02:06:24martin.pantersetmessageid: <>
2016-05-16 02:06:24martin.panterlinkissue26168 messages
2016-05-16 02:06:22martin.pantercreate