Guido van Rossum wrote: > > I should add something about the assumed pseudo thread-safety of a+=b. > > I think this assumption is bogus, since we have to load a, do some > stuff, and then store a, and we can't guarantee that the stuff we do > is atomic -- in face we *know* it's not if it involves a user-defined > method. > > Simply put: > > a += 1 IS NOT ATOMIC! > > Note that C doesn't guarantee that a++ is atomic either, even if a is > declared volatile. (I believe there's an atomic data type, but I > don't think it guarantees atomic ++. That would be very expensive > because the VM cache would have to be flushed on multiprocessor > machines. The only docs I found are at > http://www.gnu.org/manual/glibc-2.0.6/html_node/libc_365.html.) If that's the case, then why do we need augemented assignments at all ? (I understood the atomicness being the main argument for introducing augmented assigns.) -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4