On 12:40 pm, s...@uni-hd.de wrote:
On Nov 8, 4:27�am, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
It doesn't sound like the thread is communicating with the process
much. �Therefore:
There is quite a bit of communication -- the computation results are
visulized while they are generated.
I'm curious how this visualization works, since earlier you said
something to the affect that there were no shared resources. If you
kill a thread and it had opened a window and was drawing on it, with
most toolkits, you'll end up with a window stuck in your screen, won't
you?
[snip]
I really don't get that. If the reason would be that it is too much
work to
implement, then I could accept it. But saying: We know it is useful,
but we
won't allow to do it, just does not seem reasonable. Thread
cancellation
might be generally unsafe, but there are cases when it is safe. It
should be
up to the user to decide it. There are many things that do harm if
you don't
use them correctly, and of course it would be a bad idea to remove all
of
them from Python.
The CPython philosophy sort of follows the guideline that you should be
allowed to do bad stuff if you want, except when that bad stuff would
crash the interpreter (clearly ctypes is an exception to this rule of
thumb). I think this is the argument that has been applied in
opposition to adding thread termination in the past, though I don't
remember for sure.
Jean-Paul
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
