On 8/9/2011 2:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
Am 09.08.2011 01:35, schrieb Terry Reedy:
On 8/8/2011 4:26 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
With Python 3.1 and Python 3.2.1 it works OK, but with Python 3.2.1 the
read returns an empty string (I checked it myself).
http://bugs.python.org/issue12576
The bug
Probably I want to re-invent a bicycle. I want developers to say me
why we can not remove GIL in that way:
1. Remove GIL completely with all current logick.
2. Add it's own RW-locking to all mutable objects (like list or dict)
3. Add RW-locks to every context instance
4. use RW-locks when accessin
Probably I want to re-invent a bicycle. I want developers to say me
why we can not remove GIL in that way:
1. Remove GIL completely with all current logick.
2. Add it's own RW-locking to all mutable objects (like list or dict)
3. Add RW-locks to every context instance
4. use RW-locks when accessin
2011-08-09 08:02:45 Georg Brandl napisał(a):
> Am 09.08.2011 01:35, schrieb Terry Reedy:
> > On 8/8/2011 4:26 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
> With Python 3.1 and Python 3.2.1 it works OK, but with Python 3.2.1 the
> read returns an empty string (I checked it myself).
> >>>
> >>> http://bugs.p
Марк Коренберг, 09.08.2011 11:31:
In a summary: Please say clearly why, actually, my variant is not
still implemented.
This question comes up on the different Python lists every once in a while.
In general, if you want something to be implemented in a specific way, feel
free to provide the im
On Aug 09, 2011, at 08:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>I can certainly release a version with these two fixes. Question is, should
>we call it 3.2.2, or 3.2.1.1 (3.2.1p1)?
Definitely 3.2.2.
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Python-Dev
Am 09.08.2011 16:25, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Aug 09, 2011, at 08:02 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>
>>I can certainly release a version with these two fixes. Question is, should
>>we call it 3.2.2, or 3.2.1.1 (3.2.1p1)?
>
> Definitely 3.2.2.
OK, 3.2.2 it is. I will have to have a closer look at t
