Message300577
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
JohanAR, davin, gvanrossum, itamarst, ncoghlan, pitrou, python-dev, rhettinger, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, yselivanov, zzzeek |
| Date |
2017年08月19日.10:09:17 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1503137357.75.0.0790236421215.issue14976@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Would it be feasible to change the behaviour of non-reentrant locks such that:
1. They *do* keep track of the owning thread
2. Trying to acquire them again when the current thread already has them locked raises RuntimeError instead of deadlocking the way it does now?
Then they could sensibly expose the same "_is_locked()" API as RLock, while still disallowing reentrancy by default. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年08月19日 10:09:17 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, gvanrossum, tim.peters, rhettinger, pitrou, zzzeek, python-dev, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, JohanAR, yselivanov, itamarst, davin |
| 2017年08月19日 10:09:17 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1503137357.75.0.0790236421215.issue14976@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017年08月19日 10:09:17 | ncoghlan | link | issue14976 messages |
| 2017年08月19日 10:09:17 | ncoghlan | create |
|