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