since I didn't get *any* reply to this request, either the request was bad or there is really nobody using f_tstate in a way that makes it urgent to keep. I will wait a few hours and then make the change to Stackless, and I'd like to propose to do the same to the Python core.
I saved the message, but haven't had the time yet to think things through.
I *did* notice at least one case where using f_tstate might actually be a mistake: theoretically it's possible that two or more threads alternate calling next() on a generator (if they wrap it in a critical section); AFAICT the f_tstate is never updated.
I've been running Stackless Python without f_tstate for more than three months now, in various applications. May I check in a patch to evict f_tstate?
Sure! Let stackless lead the way. :-)
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/%7Eguido/)