Message300575
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
JohanAR, davin, gvanrossum, itamarst, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, rhettinger, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, yselivanov, zzzeek |
| Date |
2017年08月19日.08:54:36 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<4ebdbe8d-beaf-ebc4-dbd8-1121d52094a0@free.fr> |
| In-reply-to |
<1503091613.09.0.382886788001.issue14976@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
Oh and:
Le 18/08/2017 à 23:26, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
>
> I can't say I understand all of Antoine's patch, but it's probably okay to do it this way; however I would rather see if we can add _is_owned() to Lock, assuming it can be implemented using any of the threading/locking libraries we still support (I presume that's basically posix and Windows).
Regular Locks don't have the notion of an owning thread so, while we
could add it, that would be a bizarre API.
We can also detect reentrancy in get() and raise an error. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年08月19日 08:54:37 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, gvanrossum, tim.peters, rhettinger, ncoghlan, zzzeek, python-dev, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, JohanAR, yselivanov, itamarst, davin |
| 2017年08月19日 08:54:37 | pitrou | link | issue14976 messages |
| 2017年08月19日 08:54:36 | pitrou | create |
|