MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: amdragon@gmail.com
In-Reply-To:
 <CAH-f9WsfHUm_D-+wB89Lt9Wt=hjwDyywvJTK-0NwmHRg0TUsxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8739h1pbaq.fsf@gmail.com> <87pqjprzu2.fsf@gmail.com>
	<20110829183010.GA2605@24f89f8c-e6a1-4e75-85ee-bb8a3743bb9f>
	<87liucyn7i.fsf@gmail.com> <87aaag3xaf.fsf@gmail.com>
	<CAH-f9WsfHUm_D-+wB89Lt9Wt=hjwDyywvJTK-0NwmHRg0TUsxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:05:19 -0400
Message-ID:
 <CAH-f9WveBfvmv2jOF+C81OeeQJt06g6U0q3J_idHrs60DLw7+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Memory management practices
From: Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu>
To: Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bertram Felgenhauer <bertram.felgenhauer@googlemail.com>,
	notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>, Bart Massey <bart@cs.pdx.edu>
Precedence: list

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu> wrote:
> *snip*
>
> I'm a bit confused by the reference tree you drew. =A0The references in
> the underlying libnotmuch objects are the other way around.
> notmuch_query_t holds a talloc reference to every notmuch_messages_t
> it produces, not the other way around.

Sorry, I went back and re-read your earlier messages and now I see why
your references were the way they were.  I stand by the rest of my
previous message though.  I think the technique used in the Python
bindings only works because Python's GC happens to finalize in a
particular order (though I doubt that's guaranteed, and could easily
not be the case if you stray into the realm of its cycle collector).
In general, it seems like approach is trying to recreate C-like memory
management and is fragile as a result, whereas talloc should, I think,
allow bindings to express their runtime's memory management rather
naturally.