On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 01:46:07PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote: > On 27/05/10 00:31, Brian Quinlan wrote: > > >You have two semantic choices here: > >1. let the interpreter exit with the future still running > >2. wait until the future finishes and then exit > > I'd go for (1). I don't think it's unreasonable to > expect a program that wants all its tasks to finish > to explicitly wait for that to happen.
I'd got for (1) as well, it's no more then reasonable that if you want a result you wait for it. And I dislike libraries doing magic you can't see, I'd prefer if I explicitly had to shut a pool down. And yes, if you shut the interpreter down while threads are running they sometimes wake up at the wrong time to find the world around them destroyed. But that's part of programming with threads so it's not like the futures lib suddenly makes things behave differently. I'm glad I'm not alone in preferring (1) tough. Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org _______________________________________________ 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
