Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> The object isn't really destroyed. Simply ob_refcnt drops to zero,
> then tp_dealloc is called, which is supposed to destroy it. But since I
> wrote tp_dealloc, I choose not to destroy it,
Be aware that a C subclass of your wrapper that overrides
tp_dealloc
Qui, 2005-11-10 às 13:57 +1300, Greg Ewing escreveu:
> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>
> > OK, but what if it is a subclass of a builtin type, with instance
> > variables? What if the PyObject is GC'ed but the ObjC object remains
> > alive, and later you get a new reference to it? Do you cr
Qui, 2005-11-10 às 08:15 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" escreveu:
> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > OK, but what if it is a subclass of a builtin type, with instance
> > variables? What if the PyObject is GC'ed but the ObjC object remains
> > alive, and later you get a new reference to it? Do yo
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> OK, but what if it is a subclass of a builtin type, with instance
> variables? What if the PyObject is GC'ed but the ObjC object remains
> alive, and later you get a new reference to it? Do you create a new
> PyObject wrapper for it? What happened to the inst
On 9-nov-2005, at 23:44, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 20:40 +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> On 9-nov-2005, at 18:52, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>>
>>> Qua, 2005-11-09 às 09:23 -0800, Guido van Rossum escreveu:
>> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>>> I
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> OK, but what if it is a subclass of a builtin type, with instance
> variables? What if the PyObject is GC'ed but the ObjC object remains
> alive, and later you get a new reference to it? Do you create a new
> PyObject wrapper for it? What happened to the ins
On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 20:40 +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> On 9-nov-2005, at 18:52, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
>
> > Qua, 2005-11-09 às 09:23 -0800, Guido van Rossum escreveu:
> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > I have come across a situation where I find the current weak
> >>
On 9-nov-2005, at 18:52, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> Qua, 2005-11-09 às 09:23 -0800, Guido van Rossum escreveu:
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> I have come across a situation where I find the current weak
> references interface for extension types insufficient.
>
Qua, 2005-11-09 às 09:23 -0800, Guido van Rossum escreveu:
> > > Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > > > I have come across a situation where I find the current weak
> > > > references interface for extension types insufficient.
> > > >
> > > > Currently you only have a tp_weaklistoffset slot,
> > Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > > I have come across a situation where I find the current weak
> > > references interface for extension types insufficient.
> > >
> > > Currently you only have a tp_weaklistoffset slot, pointing to a
> > > PyObject with weak references. However, in my c
Qua, 2005-11-09 às 11:50 -0500, Jim Fulton escreveu:
> Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have come across a situation where I find the current weak
> > references interface for extension types insufficient.
> >
> > Currently you only have a tp_weaklistoffset slot, pointi
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have come across a situation where I find the current weak
> references interface for extension types insufficient.
>
> Currently you only have a tp_weaklistoffset slot, pointing to a
> PyObject with weak references. However, in my case[1] I
12 matches
Mail list logo
