SASADA Koichi <ko1 / atdot.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As you can read in comment, this API is difficult to use.  There are
> some assumptions for caller.  I'm not sure that these assumptions are
> reasonable or not.  This is why we don't put into public API.

I think the assumptions and requirements for calling this function are
reasonable (and best of all, well-documented).  The API isn't difficult
to me and the documentation is clear as to what is safe and what is not.

Threading APIs can always be tricky, but I think the C API for GVL is
a good one.

> BTW, the naming "_with_gvl" is reasonable for native English speakers?

Yes.

Thank you for the response.

-- 
Eric Wong