RetroSearch Browse

Tue Sep 5 13:08:21 EDT 2017 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-September/149159.html

On 2017-09-05 09:42, Victor Stinner wrote:
> I proposed to drop the --without-threads option multiple times. I
> worked on tiny and cheap embedded devices and we used Python *with*
> threads for concurrency. Many Python features require threads, like
> asyncio and multiprocessing. Also subprocess.communicate() on Windows,
> no?
> 
> I'm strongly in favor of dropping this option from Python 3.7. It
> would remove a lot of code!

+1

These days, tiny embedded devices can make use of MicroPython.

Christian

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-September/149159.html below:

[Python-Dev] Compiling without multithreading support -- still useful?