This attitude is exemplary of the status quo in Python on threads: Pretend they don't exist or you'll get hurt. On Feb 13, 2012 6:45 AM, "Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote: > [Replies have been sent to concurrency-sig at python.org] >> On 2012年2月12日 23:14:51 +0100 > Sturla Molden <sturla at molden.no> wrote: > > Den 12.02.2012 21:56, skrev Mike Meyer: > > > While it's a throwback to the 60s, it would make using threads and > > > processes more convenient, but I don't need it. Why don't you submit a > > > patch? > > I suppose the Windows implementation would do this on Linux as well? At > > least it uses the subprocess module to spawn a new process. Though I am > > not sure how subprocess interacts with threads in Linux. >> subprocess and threads interact *really* badly on Unix > systems. Python is missing the tools needed to deal with this > situation properly. See http://bugs.python.org/issue6923. >> Just another of the minor reasons not to use threads in Python. >> <mike > -- > Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> http://www.mired.org/ > Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information. >> O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20120213/738c04d0/attachment.html>