Armin, is there really a semantical change? Consider invocations valid in 2.7, (i.e. without timeout argument), is it not the same then? I'd rather see improvement to existing python programs :)
should this code be in nightly builds? my original use case was much more convoluted than the minimal test script, I'd like to see if original issue is also solved. d. On 23 February 2014 21:06, Armin Rigo <ar...@tunes.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 23 February 2014 19:54, Maciej Fijalkowski <fij...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Mark Roberts <wiz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> How hostile would you be to a pypy-2.8 branch with these kinds of >>> improvements? >> >> we don't need a 2.8 branch to do that, we can just commit stuff to >> master (that's still python 2.7) > > Yes, lock._py3k_acquire() has been added to the default PyPy and will > be in the next release. It's not completely clear yet if the naming > of this particular method is best. It could also be called > lock._pypy_acquire(), or be instead a built-in function in the > __pypy__ module. The point is to not change the semantics of 2.7's > lock.acquire(), as it would indeed require 2.8 --- and there is little > point for just a couple of minor details like this one. > > > A bientôt, > > Armin. > _______________________________________________ > pypy-dev mailing list > pypy-dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
