Frank Millman wrote:
Just out of interest, would the following, without a lock, be safe?
old, atomic_int = atomic_int, atomic_int+1
nope.
there's some information here (make sure you read the comments):
http://effbot.org/pyfaq/what-kinds-of-global-value-mutation-are-thread-safe.htm
and som
Frank Millman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just out of interest, would the following, without a lock, be safe?
> old, atomic_int = atomic_int, atomic_int+1
No I don't think so. But I'm told that in CPython, you can say
counter = iter(xrange(1000)) # some number that exceeds wh
On Aug 26, 5:56 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandru Mosoi wrote:
> > how can i do an atomic read+increment? something like
>
> > with lock:
> > old = atomic_int
> > atomic_int += 1
>
> > but in one operation
>
> As above - the lock (under the assumption that it is a
Alexandru Mosoi wrote:
> how can i do an atomic read+increment? something like
>
> with lock:
>old = atomic_int
>atomic_int += 1
>
> but in one operation
As above - the lock (under the assumption that it is actually a
threading.Lock) will ensure that.
Diez
--
http://mail.python.org/ma
how can i do an atomic read+increment? something like
with lock:
old = atomic_int
atomic_int += 1
but in one operation
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
