Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment: > I would still favour committing the semaphore-based version first > (especially in 3.2), and then discussing performance improvements if > desired.
For 3.2, I would prefer a solution that makes least changes to the current code. This is better than fundamentally replacing the synchronization mechanism which locks are based on. For 3.3, I predict that any Semaphore-based version will be shortly replaced by something "fast". Benchmarks seem to indicate that you can get much faster than semaphores. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11618> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
