On 18 March 2011 07:07, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Greg Ewing, 18.03.2011 01:18:
>>
>> mark florisson wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we could support it without having to acquire
>>> the GIL in the finally clause.
>>
>> That was the intention -- the code in the finally clause would
>> be subject to the same n
mark florisson, 18.03.2011 10:52:
On 18 March 2011 07:07, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Greg Ewing, 18.03.2011 01:18:
mark florisson wrote:
I think we could support it without having to acquire
the GIL in the finally clause.
That was the intention -- the code in the finally clause would
be subject
On 03/18/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
mark florisson, 18.03.2011 10:52:
On 18 March 2011 07:07, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Greg Ewing, 18.03.2011 01:18:
mark florisson wrote:
I think we could support it without having to acquire
the GIL in the finally clause.
That was the intention -- th
Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 18.03.2011 12:07:
On 03/18/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Actually, I think I still find it more convenient to not provide *any*
special exception paths through nogil code, i.e. to not let exceptions in
"with gil" blocks exit from outer "nogil" blocks. That would avoid
On 18 March 2011 13:36, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Dag Sverre Seljebotn, 18.03.2011 12:07:
>>
>> On 03/18/2011 11:10 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, I think I still find it more convenient to not provide *any*
>>> special exception paths through nogil code, i.e. to not let exceptions in
>>>
Stefan Behnel, 18.03.2011 13:36:
We shouldn't forget that basically all Python operations can at least raise
a MemoryError or a KeyboardInterrupt etc. Most users won't think of these
cases. I think it would help users in writing safer code if the need to
handle exceptions in nogil blocks was alwa
