This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author valhallasw
Recipients docs@python, loewis, valhallasw
Date 2012-06-17.15:38:46
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
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 The entire notion of an import lock is obsolete.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" This warning is still valid but for a different reason " or " this warning is no longer valid in 3.3 "?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


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 15:38:47valhallaswsetrecipients: + valhallasw, loewis, docs@python
2012-06-17 15:38:47valhallaswsetmessageid: <>
2012-06-17 15:38:47valhallaswlinkissue15097 messages
2012-06-17 15:38:46valhallaswcreate