[Thomas Heller] >>> ... >>> So is the policy now that it is no longer *allowed* to create another >>> thread state, while in previous versions there wasn't any choice, >>> because there existed no way to get the existing one? [Tim] >> You can still create all the thread states you like; the new check is >> in PyThreadState_Swap(), not in PyThreadState_New(). [Thomas] > So you can create them, Yes. > but are not allowed to use them? Currently, no more than one at a time per thread. The API doesn't appear to preclude using multiple thread states with a single thread if the right dances are performed. Offhand I don't know why someone would want to, but people want to do a lot of silly things <wink>. > (Should there be a smiley here, or not, I'm not sure) No. > ... > I'm confused: what *is* the policy now? > And: Has the policy *changed*, or was it simply not checked before? I already gave you my best guesses about those (no, yes). > Since I don't know the policy, I can only guess if the fatal error is > appropriate or not. Ditto (yes). > If it is, there should be a 'recipe' what to do (even if it is 'use the > approach outlined in PEP311'). Additions to NEWS and the PEP would be fine by me. > If it is not, the error should be removed (IMO). Sure.
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