On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, John J Lee wrote:
[...]
> I don't actively want a GIL-free Python. I was just making some arguments
[...]
Actually, FWIW, I don't know if I even *passively* want a GIL-free Python,
if it encourages threaded code (though I'd like to have that option for my
occasional personal
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 9/17/05, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...snip...]
[guido]
> If my hunch is right, I expect that instead of writing massively
> parallel applications, we will continue to write single-threaded
> applications that are tied together at the p
On 9/18/05, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/17/05, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > c. Since time is needed to iron out bugs (and perhaps also to reimplememt
> >some pieces of code "from scratch"), very early in the life of Python 3
> >seems like the least-worst
On 9/17/05, John J Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the points you make, and the facts that both Python 3 and real
> problems with continuing to scale down semiconductor chip feature sizes
> are on the horizon, it seems that now would be an excellent time to start
> work on this, with the goa
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Sokolov Yura wrote:
> > I think I know how to remove GIL Obviously I am an idiot.
>
> Not an idiot, just lazy :-) Please try to implement your ideas,
> and I predict that you will find:
> 1. it is a lot of work to implement
> 2. it requires chan
