DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=SSpaeth.de; h=from:to:cc:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version:
	content-type; q=dns; s=sspaeth.de; b=m4ssej0/PwwXeew+3uWJC5+c27T
	knK5Otm2iqNWGWWjw3IzPOrOkCQ8cnB7N+MUowBjr8f5edUQZRf37IzDuedKT9nA
	PnmFNnUp9YZ9U1UJWCnXi36/gmTUa1b1zZ9c2j4CHhwAM8LuidTjDXCbLr+ODbcs
	V0xK0aDN9qdAgYEQ=
From: Sebastian Spaeth <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de>
To: Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu>, Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Memory management practices
In-Reply-To:
 <CAH-f9WveBfvmv2jOF+C81OeeQJt06g6U0q3J_idHrs60DLw7+g@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>
	<CAH-f9WveBfvmv2jOF+C81OeeQJt06g6U0q3J_idHrs60DLw7+g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.7-19-gee4579a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:50:24 +0200
Message-ID: <87zkiff8in.fsf@SSpaeth.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: Bertram Felgenhauer <bertram.felgenhauer@googlemail.com>,
	notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>, Bart Massey <bart@cs.pdx.edu>
Precedence: list

--=-=-=

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:05:19 -0400, Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu> wrote:
> 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.

Mmmh? Why would the method in python be fragile? Each message object
holds a reference to its parent query object to keep it alive. Are you
saying cycle collectors could kill off the query object nonetheless?
(Assume that I know nothing of GCs which comes close to reality)

Sebastian

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk5oyCEACgkQVYX1jMgnoGL4YACfYYOJpDynWIXlLPN7cO0nPnLB
jXAAnjiiuIq50cd7qRRuwip397rYglf/
=5mbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--