nagle at animats.com
Mon Feb 13 22:15:36 CET 2012
On 2/10/2012 9:52 PM, 88888 Dihedral wrote:
> 在 2012年2月11日星期六UTC+8上午2时57分34秒，John Nagle写道：
>> On 2/10/2012 10:14 AM, Nathan Rice wrote:
>>>>> Lets also not forget that knowing an object is immutable lets you do a
>>>>> lot of optimizations; it can be inlined, it is safe to convert to a
>>>>> contiguous block of memory and stuff in cache, etc. If you know the
>>>>> input to a function is guaranteed to be frozen you can just go crazy.
>>>>> Being able to freeze(anyobject) seems like a pretty clear win.
>>>>> Whether or not it is pythonic is debatable. I'd argue if the meaning
>>>>> of pythonic in some context is limiting, we should consider updating
>>>>> the term rather than being dogmatic.
>> A real justification for the ability to make anything immutable is
>> to make it safely shareable between threads. If it's immutable, it
>> doesn't have to be locked for access. Mozilla's new "Rust"
>> language takes advantage of this. Take a look at Rust's concurrency
>> semantics. They've made some progress.
>> John Nagl
> Lets model the system as an asynchronous set of objects with multiple threads
> performing operatons on objects as in the above.
I'd argue for a concurrency system where everything is either
immutable, unshared, synchronized, or owned by a synchronized object.
This eliminates almost all explicit locking.
Python's use of immutability has potential in that direction, but
Python doesn't do anything with that concept.
More information about the Python-list