Modified +1: you can't change the behavior of the existing API, but you can deprecate it and introduce a better one with a different name. We'll have until Python 4.0 to carry through the deprecation anyways. And I doubt this is the only C API change needed for happy gil-free coding...
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Fred Drake <f...@fdrake.net> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> wrote: >> Given that the weakref doesn't have a reference to the object--merely a weak >> reference, different thing--whose reference is it borrowing? > > As others have said, it doesn't really matter who's reference it was; > just that there was another at the time it was returned. Clearly it > can't be considered valid once additional Python code might be run. > >> FWIW, yes, this is playing merry hell with the Gilectomy. If there are two >> threads, and one calls PyWeakref_GetObject(obj), and there's only one >> reference to obj, and the other thread blows it away... now what? It's my >> contention that this API is simply untenable under the Gilectomy, and that >> it needs to change to returning a new (strong) reference. > > +1 for this change. > > > -Fred > > -- > Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at fdrake.net> > "A storm broke loose in my mind." --Albert Einstein > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
