Stackless Python, eventual merge?

Michael Schneider michaels at
Wed Sep 18 07:51:31 EDT 2002

Martin v. Löwis wrote:

>Greg Ewing <see_reply_address at something.invalid> writes:
>>Last I heard, Christian was moving pieces of the C
>>stack while there could be pointers to it in use.
>Yes, that's how stackless works, and that cannot change.
>>That's definitely dangerous, as he discovered when
>>it broke Tk.
>What is the danger? A program crashes? It is dangerous to cross a
>street at rush hour; sitting in front of a computer is rarely
>Stackless adds a few limitations as to what C extensions can do. If
>those restrictions are followed, it won't crash.
>>I'd be very nervous about using Stackless until
>>it stops doing that.
>Why is that? Those crashes can only happen if you use the stackless
>modules (and only if you use them with a stackless-unsafe extension).
>If you don't import stackless, no stack is copied.

This is an important point that I missed.  I thought that a stackless 
python was
always stackless, and that I would need to have two version of python 

1) python.exe  - normal python ( for TK)
2) pythonsl.exe - stackless python.

Please correct me if I misintrepreted your statement above, but this is 
what I got out
of it :

    "stackless python behaves the same as 'normal' python, until you 
import the
    stackless module.  At that point, it becomes stackless python.  This 
allows you
     to run 'stackless unsafe' modules with the same interpretor as 
stackless modules,
     in a predictable manner (as long as you don't import stackless, and 
an unsafe module)"

Is this the correct understanding????

If so, this is really good news!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you very much,

 ... good stuff cut


More information about the Python-list mailing list