Why GIL?

Carl Banks pavlovevidence at gmail.com
Sat Jan 24 21:24:49 CET 2009

On Jan 24, 12:33 am, Hrvoje Niksic <hnik... at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> writes:
> > Anyway, all you're doing is distracting attention from my claim that
> > instance objects wouldn't need to be locked.  They wouldn't, no
> > matter how mutable you insist these objects whose bits would never
> > change are.
> Only if you're not implementing Python, but another language that
> doesn't support __slots__ and assignment to instance.__dict__.

I am only going to say all Python types prior to 3.0 support classes
without __slots__, so while I agree that this would be a different
language, it wouldn't necessarily be "not Python".

(Python, of course, is what GvR says Python is, and he isn't going to
say that the language I presented is Python.  No worries there! :)
I'm only saying that it is conceivably similar enough to be a
different version of Python.  It would be a different language in the
same way that Python 2.6 is a different language from Python 3.0.)

Incidentally, the proposal does allow slots to be defined, but only
for actual mutable types, not for ordinary class instances.

Carl Banks

More information about the Python-list mailing list