does python have useless destructors?

[Donn Cave]

In article <m3k6y6o8cd.fsf at pc150.maths.bris.ac.uk>,
 Michael Hudson <mwh at python.net> wrote:
> Donn Cave <donn at u.washington.edu> writes:
> > In article <m3fz8xozi1.fsf at pc150.maths.bris.ac.uk>,
> >  Michael Hudson <mwh at python.net> wrote:
> > > Manlio Perillo <NOmanlio_perilloSPAM at libero.it> writes:
> > ...
> > > > Since __del__ isn't really 'useful', *maybe* a better solution is to
> > > > add another special method for classes, ad example a __finalize__
> > > > method.
> > > 
> > > Yes!  I'm not sure __finalize__ is really the best name, but that's
> > > for another day.
> > 
> > Couldn't the name be __del__?  
> 
> As I think I said in one of the emails in the thread linked to from
> PEP 310, life would be much easier if it wasn't.
> 
> > Given the opportunity to have both, and the assurance that
> > __finalize__ will be called and __del__ might not, what
> > functionality would you leave in __del__?
> 
> None at all!  This is my cunning plan...

You're too deep for me.

> > > I would urge everyone participating in this thread to read PEP 310,
> > > the email conversation linked therein and (optional) *understand* it.
> > 
> > It seems to be superficially similar to finalization, 
> 
> OK, I've found this thread pretty hard to follow.  What is
> "finalization" in context?

Operational definition would be `call __del__ or its C equivalent',
at the effective end of the object's lifetime.  That's the way
I understand it - notify object that its time is up, let it do
its final things.

   Donn Cave, donn at u.washington.edu