On 09/08/2017 12:30 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017, at 12:24, Larry Hastings wrote:
On 09/08/2017 12:04 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
- Why not run all (Python) finalizers on the thread and not just ones
from cycles?
Two reasons:
1. Because some code relies on the finalizer being called on the thread
where the last reference is dropped. This is usually the same
thread where the object was created. Some irritating third-party
libraries make demands on callers, e.g. "you can only interact with
/ destroy X objects on your 'main thread'". This is often true of
windowing / GUI libraries. (For example, I believe this was true of
Direct3D, at least as of D3D8; it was also often true of Win32 USER
objects.)
Is the requirement that the construction and destruction be literally on
the same thread or merely non-concurrent? The GIL would provide the
latter.
Literally the same thread. My theory was that these clowntown external
libraries are hiding important details in thread local storage, but I
don't actually know.
//arry/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
