Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #68445 > unrolled thread

Re: Thread._stop() behavior changed in Python 3.4

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Thread._stop() behavior changed in Python 3.4 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-03-17 12:03 -0600

#68445 — Re: Thread._stop() behavior changed in Python 3.4

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> Antoine says that this doesn't even stop the thread
> (I can't say; I've never used _stop(), for obvious reasons), so this
> code was doubly broken.

I was curious about that -- after all, Python's threads aren't truly
concurrent, so perhaps they could just test the flag each time they
resume -- so I tested it using 3.3.  First I tried simply adding a
print call on to the end of the OP's function:

>>> def stale():
...     import time
...     time.sleep(1000)
...     print('hello')
...
>>> t = threading.Thread(target=stale)
>>> t.start(); t._stop()

No output was printed, so at least a sleeping thread can apparently be
stopped.  Then I tried removing the sleep call:

>>> def stale():
...     for i in range(10): print('hello')
...
>>> t = threading.Thread(target=stale)
>>> t.start(); print('Starting'); t._stop(); print('Stopping')
hello
Starting
Stopping
>>> hello
hello
hello
hello
hello
hello
hello
hello
hello

So yes, despite the lack of true concurrency, a thread can continue to
run after its _stop has been called.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web