Martin v. Löwis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > I should have precised that in the context of this issue, "thread-safe" does > not > mean "produces perfectly correct output" but simply "does not raise exceptions > when using the same buffered object from two different threads".
In that case, I'm -1 for this patch. Raising exceptions is much more preferable to silently losing data, or writing garbage. > The former would be preferable but is not required, IMHO, for a buffered IO > library; the > latter is much more critical because as Amaury points out, you otherwise get > exceptions when printing e.g. debut output from multiple threads. And that's a good thing, when using a library that is not thread-safe. Either the library provides thread-safety, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it's the application's responsibility to not use the library from multiple threads, or protect all access with appropriate synchronization. Now that print is a function, it's easy to implement a version of it that synchronizes all prints. With the status quo, people have at least a chance of learning that the library is not thread-safe. If the shallow problems are resolved, people will cry FOUL loudly when they learn about the deep problems. _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue3476> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
