On Apr 27, 3:20 am, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > In article > <793a5176-ec2d-4ffd-b1e7-762077733...@v35g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, > > Vsevolod <vselo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Apr 26, 6:28 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > > >> The problem is that thread-killing (in the literal sense) doesn't work. > >> Unlike processes, there's no thread-environment encapsulation at the OS > >> level, which means that things don't get cleaned up properly. Even Java > >> has mostly given up on thread-killing. The only way to kill threads > >> safely is to have them terminate themselves. Your other option is to use > >> multiple processes. > > >Well, somehow, in Lisp it's not a problem. :) > > Does Lisp even have OS-level threads? What Lisp are you using, on what > OS? Are they perhaps Erlang-style cooperative threads instead? > -- > Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ > > "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait > until you hire an amateur." --Red Adair
Different Lisp implementations provide different solutions. SBCL provides OS-level threads (on Linux), which I personally use, while CMUCL offers green threads. Allegro, LispWorks, Clozure CL, Sceineer CL and ECL as well have threading, but I don't use them, so won't speak, which implementation of threading they have. There's a common unification library -- bordeaux-threads -- that abstracts away implementation specifics. It's API includes the function destroy- thread. As well I'd like to outline, that, IMO, your answer exhibits the common attitude among pythonistas: everything should be done in one true way, which is the best option (and that is how it's implemented in the current version of the language). As of PEP-20: "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch." And if someone disagrees -- he just doesn't understand... Cheers, Vsevolod -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
