"Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "tomer filiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > once a thread is created, there is no way to kill it *externally*. > > which is a pity, since the thread must be "willing" to die, > > Doing that unconditionally is impractical: the thread has no way > to protect itself from being killed at moments it has invariants of > shared data temporarily violated. > > I agree that it should not require continuous checking for a > thread-local "ask to terminate" flag spread into all potentially > long-running loops, i.e. it requires a language mechanism. But it > must be temporarily blockable and catchable. > > Here is how I think the design should look like: > http://www.cs.ioc.ee/tfp-icfp-gpce05/tfp-proc/06num.pdf
I did not read all of that paper, but it seems to rely on the (un)masking of signals in threads, as well as the sending of signals to 'kill' a thread. One problem is that Windows doesn't really allow the sending/recieving of any non-process-killing signals, so it would be a platform-specific feature. If you want a sample implementation of that kind of thing, SAGE (http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/) performs signal masking/unmasking to stop the execution of underlying computation threads. - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
