Greg Ewing wrote: > Michael Foord wrote: > >> With the >> proposed changes, modules that do this would *continue* to work, surely >> ? >> > > Probably, but it might mean they were no longer thread > safe. An exception caught and raised in one thread would > be vulnerable to having its traceback clobbered by > another thread raising the same instance. > Right - but that would still be *no worse* than the current situation where that information isn't available on the instance. The current patterns would continue to work unchanged, but the new information wouldn't be available because a single instance is being reused. > There's also the possibility of a traceback unexpectedly > kept alive causing GC problems -- cycles, files not > closed when you expect, etc. > That *could* be a problem, although explicitly closing files is always a good practise :-) Michael Foord > -- > Greg > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk > >
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