Paul Rubin wrote:
Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> writes:
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.
If the dict contents don't change often, maybe we could use an
STM-like approach to eliminate locks when reading. That would of
course require rework to just about every C function that accesses
Python objects.
I'm a fan of lock-free data structure and software transactional memory,
but I'm also a realist. Heck, I'm one of this group's outspoken
advocates of threaded architectures. Theoretical breakthroughs will
happen, but in real world of today, threads are great but GIL-less
Python is a loser.
Wherever Python is going, let's recognize that a scripting language that
rocks is better than any other kind of language that sucks.
--
--Bryan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
