On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:18:59PM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > > I -detest- the idea of making another temporary copy of the data just > > to allow the GIL to be released during IO. data copies == bad. > > Wasn't a past mailing list thread claiming the bytes type was supposed > > to be great for IO? How's that possible unless we add a lock to the > > bytesobject? (Its not -likely- that bytes objects will be modified > > while in use for IO in most circumstances but just the possibility > > that it could be is a problem) > > I agree. There must be a way to lock a bytes object from modification, > preferably not by locking an attempt to modify it, but by raising an > exception when a locked bytes object is modified. > > (I do realise that this gives something very close to immutable bytes > objects). > > Regards, > Martin
I like that idea. Its simple and leaves any actual locking up to a subclass or other wrapper. -gps _______________________________________________ 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
