Jython, GILs and object locking.

[Harri Pesonen]

Aahz wrote:
> In article <l4hkb.104$ks2.24 at reader1.news.jippii.net>,
> Harri Pesonen  <fuerte at sci.fi> wrote:
> 
>>Aahz wrote:
>>
>>>In article <FW7kb.63$MO7.35 at reader1.news.jippii.net>,
>>>Harri Pesonen  <fuerte at sci.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Aahz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <NmBjb.253$en5.245 at reader1.news.jippii.net>,
>>>>>Harri Pesonen  <fuerte at sci.fi> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why? Each thread has its own variables, they are not shared, there is no 
>>>>>>need for synchronizing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Either you don't understand how Python currently works or you're talking
>>>>>about implementing a completely different language that happens to share
>>>>>syntax and some semantics with Python.  Which is it?
>>>>
>>>>Mostly the latter. It would be 99% compatible with the Python syntax, 
>>>>the only difference would be in threading. But it would be 
>>>>free-threading, not pseudo-threading as the current Python.
>>>
>>>The point is that it would be at best 80% compatible with current
>>>Python's semantics.  CPython doesn't have "variables", it has names and
>>>objects; all objects are global within a single process.  Changing that
>>>semantic has implications far beyond threading.  There's also the issue
>>>that you keep refusing to address: making Python work with random
>>>third-party libraries that aren't thread-safe or thread-hot.
>>
>>Sure Python has variables. You can call them objects if you like.
>>
>>Objects are global only within one interpreter state. You can have 
>>several interpreter and thread states already in CPython.
>>
>>Only a few static objects are global within a single process.
> 
> Ah.  Looks like I guessed right the first time: you *DON'T* understand
> how Python works.  Never mind.  Let me know if/when you want to get
> educated by starting a new thread; I'm done wasting my time here.

Hehe, what a lozer.

Harri