"Jason Orendorff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/11/06, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Slawomir Nowaczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But it should not be done lightly and never when the code is not > > > specifically expecting it. > > > > If you don't want random exceptions being raised in your threads, then > > don't use this method that is capable of raising exceptions somewhat > > randomly. > > I agree. The only question is how dire the warnings should be. > > I'll answer that question with another question: Are we going to make > the standard library robust against asynchronous exceptions? For > example, class Thread has an attribute __stopped that is set using > code similar to the example code I posted. An exception at just the > wrong time would kill the thread while leaving __stopped == False. > > Maybe that particular case is worth fixing, but to find and fix them > all? Better to put strong warnings on this one method: may cause > unpredictable brokenness.
Considering that it will not be accessable via standard Python, only through a few ctypes hoops, I believe that is a fairly ready indication that one should be wary of its use. I also think it would make sense to fix that particular instance (to not do so seems to be a bit foolish). - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
