RFC: Proposal: Deterministic Object Destruction

[MRAB]

On 2018-03-01 00:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 15:44:45 -0800, ooomzay wrote:
> 
>>> Here's one example: reference cycles. When do they get detected?
>> 
>> Orphan cycle _detection_ is orthogonal to this proposal.
> 
> It certainly is not. Dealing with cycles is why most of the world has
> moved on from reference counters. (Or at least, from using reference
> counters *alone*.)
> 
> 
>> As cycles are always a symptom of a design error 
> 
> "Always"?
> 
> So, because you personally don't like the with-statement (possibly
> because it is too clear, understandable, explicit and deterministic for
> your tastes?), you want to mandate that everyone else use the clumsy work-
> around of weak references to avoid an artificial and pointless "design
> error" of a reference cycle.
> 
> Great. I'm loving this RFC more and more. Not.
> 
> Hint: the real world is *full* of cycles. Many problems have to deal with
> cycles. Having to manage those cycles by hand is *awful*, and completely
> unnecessary given that garbage collectors exist that can manage them for
> you.
> 
> 
>> I personally have little interest in
>> them other than some facility to detect/debug and eliminate them from
>> applications by design (another topic).
> 
> And for your next tricks, you'll solve the political problems of the
> Middle East without hurting anyone, and then colonise Mars on a budget of
> ten thousand dollars.
> 
Or, if you want something a little more challenging, work on Brexit! :-)