Quite. We could even follow the now customary procedure of having a _stackless binary module and: #stackless.py from _stackless import *
But I think adding stackless utility classes to a separate module would be a cleaner way of doing that K > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:stackless- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Senn > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 15:13 > To: stackless list > Subject: Re: [Stackless] atomic > > For the record: I, too, am using setatomic (since I have a preemptive > stackless > tasklet scheduler -- and the scheduler itself is a tasklet and hence > needs > some control over preemption). > > Also the stackless module (although it is a built in) should be > conducive to > "runtime patching". E.g. > > import stackless > class atomic: > ...stuff here... > stackless.atomic = atomic > del atomic > > > On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:20 PM, Richard Tew wrote: > > > 'stackless' is a C extension module. This 'atomic' object would have > > to be written in C. Not many people use the atomic features, as > > indicated by the fact you're the first I have heard of in a long > time. > > > > We would be more than happy to provide a context manager, if you (or > > anyone for that matter) provided patches to add it, given the patches > > were of sufficient quality. > > > > Cheers, > > Richard. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Stackless mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Stackless mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
