[Python-Dev] Issue 10194 - Adding a gc.remap() function (original) (raw)
"Martin v. Löwis" martin at v.loewis.de
Tue Oct 26 22:47:39 CEST 2010
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Issue 10194 - Adding a gc.remap() function
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Issue 10194 - Adding a gc.remap() function
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Am 26.10.2010 22:28, schrieb Peter Ingebretson:
--- On Tue, 10/26/10, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
I think this then mandates a PEP; I'm -1 on the feature also. I am happy to write up a PEP for this feature. I'll start that process now, though if anyone feels that this idea has no chance of acceptance please let me know.
If it could actually work in a reasonable way, I would be +0. If, as I think, it can't possibly work correctly, I'll be -1.
In this evaluation, I compare this to Smalltalk's Object>>#become: What you propose should have a similar effect, IMO, although it's probably not necessary to provide the two-way nature of become:
Regards, Martin
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Issue 10194 - Adding a gc.remap() function
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Issue 10194 - Adding a gc.remap() function
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]