"Phillip J. Eby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For efficiency's sake, however, CPython could simply store the > execution context dictionary in its "thread state" structure, creating > an empty dictionary at thread initialization time. This would make it > somewhat easier to offer a C API for access to context variables, > especially where efficiency of access is desirable. But the proposal > does not depend on this.
What about a situation in which corutines are handled by multiple threads? Any time a corutine passed from one thread to another, it would lose its state. While I agree with the obvious "don't do that" response, I don't believe that the proposal will actually go very far in preventing real problems when using context managers and generators or corutines. Why? How much task state is going to be monitored/saved? Just sys? Perhaps sys and the module in which a corutine was defined? Eventually you will have someone who says, "I need Python to be saving and restoring the state of the entire interpreter so that I can have a per-user execution environment that cannot be corrupted by another user." But how much farther out is that? - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
