<p>This attitude is exemplary of the status quo in Python on threads: Pretend they don't exist or you'll get hurt.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 13, 2012 6:45 AM, "Mike Meyer" <<a href="mailto:mwm@mired.org">mwm@mired.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
[Replies have been sent to <a href="mailto:concurrency-sig@python.org">concurrency-sig@python.org</a>]<br>
<br>
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:14:51 +0100<br>
Sturla Molden <<a href="mailto:sturla@molden.no">sturla@molden.no</a>> wrote:<br>
> Den 12.02.2012 21:56, skrev Mike Meyer:<br>
> > While it's a throwback to the 60s, it would make using threads and<br>
> > processes more convenient, but I don't need it. Why don't you submit a<br>
> > patch?<br>
> I suppose the Windows implementation would do this on Linux as well? At<br>
> least it uses the subprocess module to spawn a new process. Though I am<br>
> not sure how subprocess interacts with threads in Linux.<br>
<br>
subprocess and threads interact *really* badly on Unix<br>
systems. Python is missing the tools needed to deal with this<br>
situation properly. See <a href="http://bugs.python.org/issue6923" target="_blank">http://bugs.python.org/issue6923</a>.<br>
<br>
Just another of the minor reasons not to use threads in Python.<br>
<br>
<mike<br>
--<br>
Mike Meyer <<a href="mailto:mwm@mired.org">mwm@mired.org</a>> <a href="http://www.mired.org/" target="_blank">http://www.mired.org/</a><br>
Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.<br>
<br>
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - <a href="http://www.asciiribbon.org" target="_blank">www.asciiribbon.org</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Python-ideas mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Python-ideas@python.org">Python-ideas@python.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas</a><br>
</blockquote></div>