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