[Python-Dev] Re: GIL Pep commentary (original) (raw)

David Abrahams dave@boost-consulting.com
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:26:05 -0500

"Mark Hammond" <mhammond@skippinet.com.au> writes:

Good job, Mark! Thanks! And while we are here, do you have any suggestions for the name, as per the start of the PEP? I am starting to think PyThreadStateEnsure() and PyThreadStateRelease() are good enough names.

I agree with you if you think that once you have "Ensure", "Auto" is a bit redundant. I personally like PyGIL_whatever; though people who understand this at a deeper level than I will probably say that there's more involved than just the GIL, for my purposes it's a simple matter: do you have the GIL or don't you?

I've always used the word "Demand" to mean get/create it if it isn't already there, so PyDemandGIL and PyReleaseGIL have a certain ring to them.

The only problem is that they are not really part of the same "family" as the other PyThreadState* functions, and thus people may assume they can mix-and-match them. OTOH, they clearly are ThreadState related functions, so are at least cousins to the rest of them!

Given that you're explicitly saying "all bets are off if you mix-and-match these", I think making them very similar sounding is a mistake.

As far as I can tell, there are no technical issues remaining in this PEP - only naming and clarification. Does anyone disagree with that?

Keen-to-get-this-in-2.3 ly,

keen-to-see-it-there-ly,

Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com