Kristján Valur Jónsson added the comment: > You are not restricted to the context manager model. Just use > selock.shared.acquire() or selock.exclusive.acquire().
The unlock operation is the same, so now you have to arbitrarily pick one of the "lockd" and chose release(). Why take a construct which is essentially a lock that can be acquired in two different ways and force people to view it as separate objects? I much prefer a simple RWLock primitve, such as is popular in other programming environments, and add your convenient pseudo-locks on top. That way, we are not forcing a certain myopic view of what an RWLock is down people's throat. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8800> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
