In article <b8112a95-0c8d-41b7-9e42-805e63a78...@o32g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > >The real reason they never replaced the GIL is that fine-grained >locking is expensive with reference counting. The only way the cost >of finer-grained locking would be acceptable, then, is if they got rid >of the reference counting altogether, and that was considered too >drastic a change.
...especially given CPython's goal of easy integration with C libraries. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "Programming language design is not a rational science. Most reasoning about it is at best rationalization of gut feelings, and at worst plain wrong." --GvR, python-ideas, 2009-03-01 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
