Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Swapnil Talekar <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > Swapnil Talekar <swapnil...@gmail.com> added the comment: > Nick, the last statement, > "While this is correct for most purposes, it does mean that..." > can be simplified to, > "It means...". > I had to read it several times before I realized, there is no "not" after > "does" :)
The shorter version doesn't mean the same thing though - the ctypes arrangement *really is* correct for most purposes. The only issue is that threading.local won't persist, since the storage is blown away as soon as the callback returns. > BTW, since this particular arrangement of having a temporary thread state > during the callback is particularly useful for ctypes (I cannot imagine any > other usecase) and also it sort-of breaks things, a potential feature request > could be to have consistent thread state during the lifetime of a C thread. I > don't have much idea how to do that or whether it is even possible? Would > anyone like to give a thought? There's no easy way to make the thread state persist between calls, as ctypes needs to destroy the thread state it creates at some point to avoid a memory leak. Since it has no way of knowing when the underlying C thread is no longer in use, it is forced to assume that every call is going to be the last one from that thread and kill the thread state. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6627> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
