Merlijn van Deen <valhall...@gmail.com> added the comment: First off, thank you for your response.
> The existence of an import lock is deliberately omitted from the text, > and the reader is supposed to abide by the restriction as written > regardless of the motivation behind it. > The entire notion of an import lock is obsolete. Python 3.3 does not > have that anymore. " This warning is still valid but for a different reason " or " this warning is no longer valid in 3.3 "? Assuming the first (which is what I guess based on the fact the deadlock still occurs in 3.3), I think the text can still be improved; the current wording suggests to me a) it's OK to wait for a thread as long as you did not create it and b) it's OK to import something that waits for a thread as long as you do it from the main module - while both cases can still lead to a deadlock. so, leaving the implementation details out, this is my suggestion: "Firstly, an import should not have the side effect of waiting for a thread in any way. This can lead to a deadlock if that thread directly or indirectly attempts to import a module." ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15097> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
