Antoine Pitrou wrote: > Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan <at> gmail.com> writes: >> It's also one of the major reasons for not sharing mutable containers >> between threads if you can avoid it (and serialising access to them if >> you can't) > > Not necessarily, for example it is common to rely on the fact that list.append() > is atomic. s/"mutable containers"/"mutable-containers-that-object-loudly-to-their-size-changing-during-iteration -like-sets-and-dicts" :) Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia ---------------------------------------------------------------
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