STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment:
This issue has a long history. A change has been applied and then reverted three times in a row. Pending calls are now per-interpreter. The issue title is "Add a cross-interpreter-safe mechanism to indicate that an object may be destroyed." but I don't understand if pending calls are expected to be used to communicate between two interpreters. Why not using a UNIX pipe and exchange bytes through it? Py_AddPendingCall() is a weird concept. I would prefer to not abuse it. Moreover, it's unclear if this issue attempts to *share* a same object between two interpreters. I would prefer to avoid that by any possible way. I close this issue with a complex history. If someone wants to continue to work on this topic, please open an issue with a very clear description of what should be done and how it is supposed to be used. ---------- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.9 -Python 3.8 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue33608> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
