[Python-Dev] PEP 3148 ready for pronouncement (original) (raw)

Brian Quinlan brian at sweetapp.com
Thu May 27 10:13:01 CEST 2010

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

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list