On Jun 9, 5:33 am, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-06-07, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 12:44 pm, The Pythonista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's always been my understanding that you can't forcibly kill a thread > >> in Python (at least not in a portable way). The best you can do is > >> politely ask it to die, IIRC. > > > Inherently, the best you can do in most languages is ask them politely > > to die. Otherwise you'll leave locks and various other datastructures > > in an inconvenient state, which is too complex to handle correctly. > > The exception is certain functional languages, which aren't capable of > > having threads and complex state in the same sense. > > Well it would of course depend on what is considered asking politely? > > If one thread could cause an exception being thrown in an other thread, > would this be considered a polite way to ask? Would it be considered > an acceptable way?
The exception must not be raised until a point explicitly designed as safe is hit. Otherwise, any function that manipulates data you'll still use will potentially be buggered. Consider sys.stdout: codecs, buffering, lots to go wrong. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
