On 11 July 2018 at 00:31, David Foster <davidf...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was not aware of PyParallel. The PyParellel "parallel thread" > line-of-execution implementation is pretty interesting. Trent, big kudos to > you on that effort. > > Since you're speaking in the past tense and said "but we're not doing it > like that", I infer that the notion of a parallel thread was turned down for > integration into CPython, as that appears to have been the original goal. > > However I am unable to locate a rationale for why that integration was > turned down. Was it deemed to be too complex to execute, perhaps in the > context of providing C extension compatibility? Was there a desire to see a > similar implementation on Linux as well as Windows? Some other reason?
It was never extended beyond Windows, and a Windows-only solution doesn't meet the needs of a lot of folks interested in more efficient exploitation of multiple local CPU cores. It's still an interesting design concept though, especially for problems that can be deconstructed into a setup phase (read/write main thread), and a parallel operation phase (ephemeral worker threads that store all persistent state in memory mapped files, or otherwise outside the current process). 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/
