Skip to content

PEP 788: Reimagining native threads #4385

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 53 commits into from
Apr 27, 2025
Merged

Conversation

ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member

@ZeroIntensity ZeroIntensity commented Apr 23, 2025

cc @vstinner

This is a PEPified version of this thread, which stemmed off of this other thread.

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

  • Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
  • File created from the latest PEP template
  • PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
  • Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
  • Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
  • Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
  • PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
  • Required sections included
    • Abstract (first section)
    • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
  • Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
  • PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
  • Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

Standards Track requirements

  • PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
  • Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
    • Motivation
    • Rationale
    • Specification
    • Backwards Compatibility
    • Security Implications
    • How to Teach This
    • Reference Implementation
    • Rejected Ideas
    • Open Issues
  • Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
  • Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such
  • Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4385.org.readthedocs.build/pep-0788/

@AA-Turner AA-Turner added the new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review label Apr 23, 2025
Copy link
Member

@AA-Turner AA-Turner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Several editorial suggestions. Thanks!

A

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member Author

I've realized a minor use-case that the proposal doesn't cover. I need make a few additions, so please refrain from merging for now.

@hugovk hugovk marked this pull request as draft April 26, 2025 15:27
@ZeroIntensity ZeroIntensity marked this pull request as ready for review April 26, 2025 16:18
@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, reference implementation and PEP updated. Sorry about the extra hassle there! @hugovk, this is ready otherwise. Would you like to give PyInterpreterState_Lookup a once-over?

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

@ZeroIntensity ready to merge?

A

@ZeroIntensity
Copy link
Member Author

Yup!

@hugovk hugovk merged commit 764aba9 into python:main Apr 27, 2025
5 checks passed
@hugovk
Copy link
Member

hugovk commented Apr 27, 2025

@ZeroIntensity Congratulations on your first PEP! Please open the discussions thread, then open a quick PR to add it to Discussions-To and Post-History. Thanks!

@AA-Turner
Copy link
Member

When you've created the discuss.p.o thread, please make a follow up PR here to add it to Discussions-To and Post-History.

A

@ZeroIntensity ZeroIntensity deleted the c-thread-pep branch April 27, 2025 15:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new-pep A new draft PEP submitted for initial review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants