On Jan 23, 10:55 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: > > Paul Rubin wrote: > >> Bryan Olson writes: > >>>> BTW, class instances are usually immutable and thus don't require a > >>>> mutex in the system I described. > >>> Then you are describing a language radically different from Python. > >> That one threw me for a minute too, but I think the idea is that the > >> class instance itself is immutable, while its slots (specifically the > >> attribute dictionary) point to mutable objects. > > > Correct, and, getting back to the point, an instance itself would not > > require a mutex. The dict would need it, of course. > > The dict is part of the object and some important slots are mutable. > What's more, if your point was to do away with the GIL without changing > Python semantics nor requiring heaping masses of locking, I fear you've > not fully grasped the problem.
If that's what you think I thought, I fear you haven't read anything I've written. [snip] > An object's __dict__ slot is *not* mutable; thus we could gain some > efficiency by protecting the object and its dict with the same lock. I > do not see a major win in Mr. Banks' point that we do not need to lock > the object, just its dict. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming this was a major win. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I claimed that having to lock all mutable objects wouldn't be slow. For Pete's sake, you followed up to a post where I *agreed* that it would be slow. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
