On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 00:36 -0500, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > [Guido] > > Oh, no! > > Before shooting this one down, consider a simpler incarnation not involving > the > GIL. The idea is to allow an active thread to temporarily suspend switching > for > a few steps: [...] > I disagree that the need is rare. My own use case is that I sometimes add > some > debugging print statements that need to execute atomically -- it is a PITA > because PRINT_ITEM and PRINT_NEWLINE are two different opcodes and are not > guaranteed to pair atomically. The current RightWay(tm) is for me to create > a > separate daemon thread for printing and to send lines to it via the queue > module > (even that is tricky because you don't want the main thread to exit before a > print queued item is completed). I suggest that that is too complex for a > simple debugging print statement. It would be great to simply write:
You don't need to use queue... that has the potentially nasty side affect of allowing threads to run ahead before their debugging has been output. A better way is to have all your debugging go through a print_debug() method that acquires and releases a debug_lock threading.Lock. This is simpler as it avoids the separate thread, and ensures that threads "pause" until their debugging output is done. -- Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/ _______________________________________________ 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
