On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:25 AM Shreyan Avigyan <pythonshreya...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Chris wrote: > > This is thread-safe: > > > > from threading import Lock > > > > lock = Lock() > > counter = 0 > > def get_next(): > > with lock: > > global counter > > counter += 1 > > my_counter = counter > > This is a great workaround. I can try to improve this. But first of all > should we depend on the user to do this locking? I don't think so. So is it > possible to implement this in the background without affecting current > performance? >
No, you can't, because it's impossible to know when you're done mutating. However, if the mutation is inherently atomic - or if subsequent lookups don't require atomicity - then the lock becomes unnecessary, and your code will be thread-safe already. (If you use async functions or recursion but no threads, then every yield point becomes explicit in the code, and you effectively have a lock that governs every block of code between those points. But that has many many other implications. Point is, statics should be compatible with ALL use-cases, and that shouldn't be difficult.) ChrisA _______________________________________________ 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/UDCI23RMBFGW27U3VUAUAEDYAI2XRH7A/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
