In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> > |> |> > |> Does anyone have any conclusive evidence that python threads/locks are |> > |> safe or unsafe? |> > |> > Unsafe. They are built on top of unsafe primitives (POSIX, Microsoft |> > etc.) Python will shield you from some problems, but not all. |> > |> > There is precious little that you can do, because the root cause is |> > that the standards and specifications are hopelessly flawed. |> |> This is sufficiently inaccurate that I would call it FUD. Using |> threads from Python, as from any other language, requires knowledge of |> the tradeoffs and limitations of threading, but claiming that their |> usage is *inherently* unsafe isn't true. It is almost certain that |> your code and locking are flawed, not that the threads underneath you |> are buggy.
I suggest that you find out rather more about the ill-definition of POSIX threading memory model, to name one of the better documented aspects. A Web search should provide you with more information on the ghastly mess than any sane person wants to know. And that is only one of many aspects :-( Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
