On 14 September 2017 at 08:25, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 September 2017 at 20:45, Koos Zevenhoven <k7ho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It's still just *an* interpreter that happens to run __main__. And who says >> it even needs to be the only one? > > Koos, I've asked multiple times now for you to describe the practical > user benefits you believe will come from dispensing with the existing > notion of a main interpreter (which is *not* something PEP 554 has > created - the main interpreter already exists at the implementation > level, PEP 554 just makes that fact visible at the Python level).
Eric addressed this in the latest update, and took the view that since it's a question the can be deferred, it's one that should be deferred, in line with the overall "minimal enabling infrastructure" philosophy of the PEP. On thinking about it further, I believe this may also intersect with some open questions I have around the visibility of *thread* objects across interpreters - the real runtime constraint at the implementation level is the fact that we need a main *thread* in order to sensibly manage the way signal handling works across different platforms, and that's where we may get into trouble if we allow arbitrary subinterpreters to run in the main thread, and accept and process signals directly. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
