Scott Gilbert wrote:
>--- Thomas Heller <thomas.heller@ion-tof.com> wrote:
>>>>They do, but the referenced "inner-thing" needs it's own reference
>>>>>count to
>>>>>know how many "bytes-views" are sharing it. When a bytes-view gets
>>>>>cleaned
>>>>>up, it decrefs the reference count of the inner-thing it is referring
>>>>>to,
>>>>>and if the reference count goes to zero, the bytes-view calls the
>>>destructor for the inner-thing.
>>>>>Hm, I thought the 'inner-thing' is a python object (with it's own
>>refcount) itself. Isn't the 'inner-thing' the bytes object owning
>>the allocated memory? And the 'outer-things' (the views) simply
>>viewing slices of this memory?
>>>>The outer-thing is definitely the "bytes object", since that's what people
>will work with directly. It has to be a true Python object in all its
>glory.
>>The inner-thing _could_ be a Python object (and Guido suggested that maybe
>it should be), but that's an implementation detail. I don't know why
>>>anyone would want to work with the inner-thing directly. However, one good
>use case and I'll be sold on the idea.
>Letting the inner-thing be a mmap would enable slices of a mmap as views
as opposed to strings. We'd certainly like this for numarray,
especially if it meant pickling efficiency for mmap based arrays.
>>>I'll definitely add some verbage to clarify this in the next revision.
>>Cheers,
> -Scott
>>>>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
>http://health.yahoo.com>>_______________________________________________
>Python-Dev mailing list
>Python-Dev@python.org>http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev>
--
Todd Miller jmiller@stsci.edu
STSCI / SSG (410) 338 4576
