[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement

[Brian Quinlan]

On 27 May 2010, at 17:53, Floris Bruynooghe wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 01:46:07PM +1200, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> On 27/05/10 00:31, Brian Quinlan wrote:
>>
>>> You have two semantic choices here:
>>> 1. let the interpreter exit with the future still running
>>> 2. wait until the future finishes and then exit
>>
>> I'd go for (1). I don't think it's unreasonable to
>> expect a program that wants all its tasks to finish
>> to explicitly wait for that to happen.
>
> I'd got for (1) as well, it's no more then reasonable that if you want
> a result you wait for it.  And I dislike libraries doing magic you
> can't see, I'd prefer if I explicitly had to shut a pool down.  And
> yes, if you shut the interpreter down while threads are running they
> sometimes wake up at the wrong time to find the world around them
> destroyed.  But that's part of programming with threads so it's not
> like the futures lib suddenly makes things behave differently.
>
> I'm glad I'm not alone in preferring (1) tough.

Keep in mind that this library magic is consistent with the library  
magic that the threading module does - unless the user sets  
Thread.daemon to True, the interpreter does *not* exit until the  
thread does.

Cheers,
Brian