[issue3560] redundant "base" field in memoryview objects

[Antoine Pitrou]

Antoine Pitrou <pitrou at free.fr> added the comment:

Le vendredi 15 août 2008 à 19:10 +0000, Martin v. Löwis a écrit :
> Martin v. Löwis <martin at v.loewis.de> added the comment:
> 
> > Because it should be fixed before 3.0 final?
> 
> And why should that be done? IMO, this can still
> be fixed in 3.1, or not a fixed at all - I fail to
> see the true bug (apart from the minor redundancy).

I've filed this as critical because it is a new API and, if we change
it, we'd better change it before 3.0 is released.

It is a minor redundancy but could easily lead to subtle problems
(crashes, memory leaks...) if for whatever reason, "base" and "view.obj"
start pointing to different objects.

Of course, if other people disagree, it can be bumped down to "normal".

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue3560>
_______________________________________