Message163071
First off, thank you for your response.
> The existence of an import lock is deliberately omitted from the text,
> and the reader is supposed to abide by the restriction as written
> regardless of the motivation behind it.
> The entire notion of an import lock is obsolete. Python 3.3 does not
> have that anymore.
" This warning is still valid but for a different reason " or " this warning is no longer valid in 3.3 "?
Assuming the first (which is what I guess based on the fact the deadlock still occurs in 3.3), I think the text can still be improved; the current wording suggests to me
a) it's OK to wait for a thread as long as you did not create it
and
b) it's OK to import something that waits for a thread as long as you do it from the main module
- while both cases can still lead to a deadlock.
so, leaving the implementation details out, this is my suggestion:
"Firstly, an import should not have the side effect of waiting for a thread in any way. This can lead to a deadlock if that thread directly or indirectly attempts to import a module." |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-06-17 15:38:47 | valhallasw | set | recipients:
+ valhallasw, loewis, docs@python |
2012-06-17 15:38:47 | valhallasw | set | messageid: <1339947527.89.0.899071676959.issue15097@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2012-06-17 15:38:47 | valhallasw | link | issue15097 messages |
2012-06-17 15:38:46 | valhallasw | create | |
|