Memory management practices

[Austin Clements]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Austin Clements <amdragon at mit.edu> wrote:
> *snip*
>
> I'm a bit confused by the reference tree you drew.  The 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.