Petr Viktorin <encu...@gmail.com> added the comment:
Sorry, I lost this bug in my TODO list :( > > I don't think it's necessary here. > > Did you read my rationale (first message)? Do you mean that per-interpreter > GIL is not worth it? Right, I mean that it it is not worth breaking the C-API for all existing modules. Instead, I think that it can be done as an addition: only modules that don't use things like these static types would be allowed in subinterpreters that have their own GIL. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue40601> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
