Tim Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you don't want to exploit it, that's fine: there was always an > obvious approach using an explicit mutex here, and the only thing > stopping you from using it is a desire to be clever. Exploiting the > GIL in CPython is clever; using an explicit mutex is utterly > straightforward. Pick your poison.
For my immediate requirement I'm going to use xrange as you suggested (thanks!). It will work exactly as I want. I'd be uncomfortable publishing such a program for long-term use by other people, but this is just for a short-term hack (famous last words). I think using an explicit mutex goes against Guido's quote mentioned yesterday, about avoiding tedious code. But relying on the GIL results in a brittle program that only works correctly in one Python implementation. As use of other implementations becomes more widespread, one of three things has to happen: 1) Python programs will become uglier and more mistake-prone (from using explicit mutexes all over the place); 2) Python programs will become unreliable (from depending on a GIL that doesn't exist any more); or 3) Python will acquire some new mechanisms for handling reliable synchronization easily and cleanly, as other languages already have. I think (3) is the preferable choice and it's reasonable to try to figure out how such mechanisms should work. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
