[Python-ideas] The future of Python parallelism. The GIL. Subinterpreters. Actors.

[Terry Reedy]

On 7/10/2018 10:31 AM, David Foster wrote:

> Since you're speaking in the past tense and said "but we're not doing it 
> like that", I infer that the notion of a parallel thread was turned down 
> for integration into CPython, as that appears to have been the original 
> goal.

A far as I remember, there was never a formal proposal (PEP).  And I 
just searched PEP 0 for 'parallel'.  Hence, no formal rejection, 
rationale, or thread.

> However I am unable to locate a rationale for why that integration was 
> turned down. Was it deemed to be too complex to execute, perhaps in the 
> context of providing C extension compatibility? Was there a desire to 
> see a similar implementation on Linux as well as Windows? Some other 
> reason? Since I presume you were directly involved in the discussions, 
> perhaps you have a link to the relevant thread handy?

As always, there may have been private, off-the-record, informal 
discussions.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy