On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:21 PM Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > Paul Rubin wrote [concerning GIL removal]: > > It's weird that Python's designers were willing to mess up the user > > language in the 2-to-3 transition but felt that the C API had to be kept > > sarcosanct. Huge opportunities were blown at multiple levels. > > You say that as though we had a solution for GIL removal all > thought out and ready to go, and the only thing that stopped us > is that it would have required changing the C API. > > But it's not like that at all. As far as I know, all the > attempts that have been made so far to remove the GIL have > led to performance that was less than satisfactory. It's a > hard problem that we haven't found a good solution to yet. >
In actual fact, it's not a problem per-se. It's a design choice, and every alternative choice tried so far has even worse problems. THAT is why we still have it. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
