On 27 May 2010, at 17:53, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 01:46:07PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
On 27/05/10 00:31, Brian Quinlan wrote:
You have two semantic choices here:
1. let the interpreter exit with the future still running
2. wait until the future finishes and then exit
I'd go for (1). I don't think it's unreasonable to
expect a program that wants all its tasks to finish
to explicitly wait for that to happen.
I'd got for (1) as well, it's no more then reasonable that if you want
a result you wait for it. And I dislike libraries doing magic you
can't see, I'd prefer if I explicitly had to shut a pool down. And
yes, if you shut the interpreter down while threads are running they
sometimes wake up at the wrong time to find the world around them
destroyed. But that's part of programming with threads so it's not
like the futures lib suddenly makes things behave differently.
I'm glad I'm not alone in preferring (1) tough.
Keep in mind that this library magic is consistent with the library
magic that the threading module does - unless the user sets
Thread.daemon to True, the interpreter does *not* exit until the
thread does.
Cheers,
Brian
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
