RetroSearch Browse

Tue Sep 5 12:42:04 EDT 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-September/149157.html

I proposed to drop the --without-threads option multiple times. I
worked on tiny and cheap embedded devices and we used Python *with*
threads for concurrency. Many Python features require threads, like
asyncio and multiprocessing. Also subprocess.communicate() on Windows,
no?

I'm strongly in favor of dropping this option from Python 3.7. It
would remove a lot of code!

Victor

2017-09-05 18:36 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>:
>
> Hello,
>
> It's 2017 and we are still allowing people to compile CPython without
> threads support.  It adds some complication in several places
> (including delicate parts of our internal C code) without a clear
> benefit.  Do people still need this?
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/victor.stinner%40gmail.com

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-September/149157.html below:

[Python-Dev] Compiling without multithreading support -- still useful?