On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 09:27 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Selj
On 08/18/2011 09:27 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
That's a nice idea.
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>>> wrote:
On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradsha
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
That's a nice idea. I have to admit that all thes
On 08/18/2011 09:06 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 18.08.2011 08:39:
The semantics are simple: For all cdef functions, if "nogil" could have
been applied without a syntax error, then it gets automatically applied.
The only time this isn't completely safe is when the GIL is inten
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 18.08.2011 08:39:
The semantics are simple: For all cdef functions, if "nogil" could have
been applied without a syntax error, then it gets automatically applied.
The only time this isn't completely safe is when the GIL is intentionally
being used as a lock.
In which case
On 08/18/2011 08:39 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
That's a nice idea. I have to admit that all these special gil
declarations are a bi
Robert Bradshaw, 17.08.2011 20:19:
I have to admit that all these special gil
declarations are a bit messy. I'd also rather introduce clear
decorators, e.g.
@cython.requires_gil # expects gil
cdef a(): ...
@cython.requires.gil(False) # nogil
cdef b(): ...
@cython.aquires_gil # with gil
cdef
On 08/17/2011 09:21 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
That's a nice idea. I have to admit that all these special gil
declarations are a bit messy. I'd also rather introduce clear
decorators,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>> That's a nice idea. I have to admit that all these special gil
>> declarations are a bit messy. I'd also rather introduce clear
>> decorators, e.g.
>>
>> @cython.requires_gil # exp
On 08/17/2011 08:19 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
That's a nice idea. I have to admit that all these special gil
declarations are a bit messy. I'd also rather introduce clear
decorators, e.g.
@cython.requires_gil # expects gil
cdef a(): ...
@cython.requires.gil(False) # nogil
cdef b(): ...
@cyth
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 09:12 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> So your proposal is that "with cython.synchronized" has the same
>> effect as a Python operation, in that its a compile time error to do
>> it while not holding the gil? (As opposed to
On 08/17/2011 09:12 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
On 08/12/2011 02:45 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
[second try in moving this discussion to cython-devel]
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 12.08.2011 08:50:
On 08/12/2011 06:44 AM, Robert Bradshaw wro
13 matches
Mail list logo
