On Jan 19, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Greg wrote: > Glyph wrote: >> [Guido] mentions the point that coroutines that can implicitly switch out >> from under you have the same non-deterministic property as threads: you >> don't know where you're going to need a lock or lock-like construct to >> update any variables, so you need to think about concurrency more deeply >> than if you could explicitly always see a 'yield'. > > I'm not convinced that being able to see 'yield's will help > all that much.
Well, apparently we disagree, and I work on such a system all day, every day :-). It was nice to see that Matt Joiner also agreed for very similar reasons, and at least I know I'm not crazy. > In any system that makes substantial use of > generator-based coroutines, you're going to see 'yield from's > all over the place, from the lowest to the highest levels. > But that doesn't mean you need a correspondingly large > number of locks. You can't look at a 'yield' and conclude > that you need a lock there or tell what needs to be locked. Yes, but you can look at a 'yield' and conclude that you might need a lock, and that you have to think about it. Further exploration of my own feelings on the subject grew a bit beyond a good length for a reply here, so if you're interested in my thoughts you can have a look at my blog: <http://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2012/01/concurrency-spectrum-from-callbacks-to.html>. > There's no substitute for deep thought where any kind of theading is > involved, IMO. Sometimes there's no alternative, but wherever I can, I avoid thinking, especially hard thinking. This maxim has served me very well throughout my programming career ;-). -glyph
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
