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