On 03/17/2011 09:27 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 17.03.2011 08:38:
On 03/17/2011 12:24 AM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a good idea. nogil blocks don't have a
way to
handle exceptions, so simply jumping out of them because an inner
'with
On 03/17/2011 11:16 AM, mark florisson wrote:
On 17 March 2011 10:08, Dag Sverre Seljebotnd.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
How about this compromise: We balk on the code you wrote with:
Error line 345: Exceptions propagating from with gil block cannot be
propagated out of function, please
On 3/16/11 11:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de wrote:
I'm actually leaning towards not guaranteeing the order of execution if C
doesn't do it either. If this is really required, it's easy to work around
for users, but it's severely
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 3/16/11 11:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de
wrote:
I'm actually leaning towards not guaranteeing the order of execution if C
doesn't do it
2011/3/17 Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 3/16/11 11:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Stefan Behnelstefan...@behnel.de
wrote:
I'm actually leaning towards not
On 16 March 2011 20:16, mark florisson markflorisso...@gmail.com wrote:
Could someone review the patch (which is attached)? Maybe check if I
haven't missed any side cases and such?
From a first look, the test file you added seems far too short. I would
expect that this feature requires a lot
mark florisson wrote:
I think we could support it without having to acquire
the GIL in the finally clause.
That was the intention -- the code in the finally clause would
be subject to the same nogil restrictions as the rest of
the nogil block.
My point is that as long as you're allowing
