Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, robert wrote:
>
> > * Ruby without refcounts provides no deterministic __del__ in
> > non-circular refs ==> your type finally finally finally .close .close
> > .close all the time
>
> Which is what you should type in
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, robert wrote:
> * Ruby without refcounts provides no deterministic __del__ in
> non-circular refs ==> your type finally finally finally .close .close
> .close all the time
Which is what you should type in Python too as there's no guarantee that
`__del__()` will be calle
robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> What? When I add/del an item to a dict or list, this is not an atomic
> thread-safe operation?
Exactly: there is no such guarantee in the Python language.
> E.g.:
> One thread does things like d['x']='y'
> Another thread reads d['z'] or sets d['z']='w'
Em Sáb, 2006-03-11 às 23:44 +0100, robert escreveu:
> > Farwell and best of luck in finding other languages which support
> > threads in a way that is more to your liking than Python -- maybe Ruby
> > suits you, I don't know for sure though.
>
> I looked several times on Ruby, but stay with Python
Alex Martelli wrote:
> robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>
>>99.99% no. I would have to use a lock everywhere, where I add or remove
>>something into a dict or list of the struct. Thats not the purpose of
>>big thread locks. Such simple operations are already atomic by the
>>definition
