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