The binding for acc in the reduce call is still active during the f call, which means there are at least two references to acc.
replyWhy is it still active? Even an interpreter with no lookahead could see that it goes out of scope immediately when f returns (it gets shadowed on that line), so as long as there's no guarantee about when finalizers get called, it should be able to mark it dead inside of reduce as soon as it's passed to f. Like move semantics here should be a general pattern for optimization, no?
replyDoes Python actually do that? If the f call throws, you can still observe the (unchanged) binding of acc in reduce.
replyFair, I suppose there's no end to the level of insanity that a programmer can do in a dynamic language. I'd think it could perhaps still look to see there's no catch, but maybe eval makes even that impossible.
reply