"Mark Hammond" <mhammond@skippinet.com.au> writes: >> Good job, Mark! > > Thanks! And while we are here, do you have any suggestions for the name, as > per the start of the PEP? > > I am starting to think PyThreadState_Ensure() and PyThreadState_Release() > are good enough names. I agree with you if you think that once you have "Ensure", "Auto" is a bit redundant. I personally like PyGIL_whatever; though people who understand this at a deeper level than I will probably say that there's more involved than just the GIL, for my purposes it's a simple matter: do you have the GIL or don't you? I've always used the word "Demand" to mean get/create it if it isn't already there, so PyDemandGIL and PyReleaseGIL have a certain ring to them. > The only problem is that they are not really part of the same > "family" as the other PyThreadState_* functions, and thus people may > assume they can mix-and-match them. OTOH, they clearly are > ThreadState related functions, so are at least cousins to the rest > of them! Given that you're explicitly saying "all bets are off if you mix-and-match these", I think making them very similar sounding is a mistake. > As far as I can tell, there are no technical issues remaining in this PEP - > only naming and clarification. Does anyone disagree with that? > > Keen-to-get-this-in-2.3 ly, keen-to-see-it-there-ly, -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
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