<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:solipsis@pitrou.net">solipsis@pitrou.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 09:43:33 -0700<br>
<div class="im">Guido van Rossum <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
</div><div class="im">> This sounds like a very interesting idea to pursue, even if it's late,<br>
> and even if it's experimental, and even if it's possible to cause<br>
> deadlocks (no news there). I propose that we offer a C API in Python<br>
> 3.3 as well as an extension module that offers the proposed decorator.<br>
> The C API could then be used to implement alternative APIs purely as<br>
> extension modules (e.g. would a deadlock-detecting API be possible?).<br>
<br>
</div>We could offer the C API without shipping an extension module ourselves.<br>
I don't think we should provide (and maintain!) a Python API that helps<br>
users put themselves in all kind of nasty situations. There is enough<br>
misunderstanding around the GIL and multithreading already.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1</div><div> </div></div>