RetroSearch Browse

Sat Jan 7 16:22:15 CET 2012 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115371.html

Nick did you mean to say "wrap python code around a reentrant lock to
create a non-reentrant lock"? Isn't that what PyRLock is doing?

FWIW having now read issues 13697 and 13550, I'm +1 for dropping Python
RLock, and all the logging machinery in threading.

2012/1/8 Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com>

> 2012/1/7 Charles-François Natali <neologix at free.fr>:
> > Thanks for those precisions, but I must admit it doesn't help me much...
> > Can we drop it? A yes/no answer will do it ;-)
>
> The yes/no answer is "No, we can't drop it".
>
> Even though CPython no longer uses the Python version of RLock in
> normal operation, it's still the reference implementation for everyone
> else that has to perform the same task (i.e. wrap Python code around a
> non-reentrant lock to create a reentrant one).
>
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
> --
> Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
>

-- 
ಠ_ಠ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120108/e6a25c2b/attachment.html>

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-January/115371.html below:

[Python-Dev] usefulness of Python version of threading.RLock