On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:36 PM Michael Foord <fuzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 20:53, Yonatan Zunger <zun...@humu.com> wrote: > >> Generally, threads don't have a notion of non-cooperative thread >> termination. This is because (unlike processes) threads share address >> spaces, and an unexpected termination of a thread can leave memory in >> arbitrary and unexpected states. (For example, what if one thread was >> holding a mutex when it got killed?) >> > > That's precisely why thread cancellation in managed languages (like Python > is) raise an exception to terminate the the thread and honour finally > blocks. > There's one issue that Yonatan's post reminded me of though. Currently a thread that's locked in a mutex.acquire() operation cannot be interrupted by a signal at the Python level (unlike I/O, which can be interrupted -- IIRC Victor spent a lot of time making this work). There's a workaround (specify a timeout) but this is still something that would have to be solved for this to be useful. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) *Pronouns: he/him/his **(why is my pronoun here?)* <http://feministing.com/2015/02/03/how-using-they-as-a-singular-pronoun-can-change-the-world/>
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/5AXXKEFWSQRWB4JVGHEZ3XRJE6X3H2GJ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
