On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 23:06 -0500, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > +1 on the idea, -1000 on the name. It's neither atomic nor a > transaction. I believe that "critical section" is a more common term for > what you're proposing. > > Probably the primitive could be placed in the thread or threading module, > so that it would be something like: > > with threading.critical_section(): > # ...
Or even <shudder> threading.synchronized(). But in any event, +1 on the idea and on sticking the primitive in threading. > It might be nice to be able to escape out of the critical section using a > nested with: statement, as this would allow you to treat much of a program > as single-threaded, and then selectively allow task switching. But I'm not > sure what you'd call that API. :) threading.unsynchronize()? Yikes. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
