[Python-ideas] Store shared/locked state inside of the lock object

[Masklinn]

On 2014-11-08, at 21:01 , Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 11/08/2014 10:42 AM, Masklinn wrote:
>> 
>> On the one hand this'd allow completely ignoring backwards-compatibility
>> issues wrt acquire() which is nice, on the other hand it would double
>> the number of lock types and introduce redundancy as DataLock would be
>> pretty much a strict superset of Lock, which is why I thought extending
>> Lock made sense.
> 
> How does transforming existing locks into this kind of lock benefit existing code?

I don't think I claimed that anywhere, as far as I think it makes
absolutely no difference to existing code.

>  If existing code has to change to take advantage of the new features, said code could just as easily change the name of the lock it was using.

Yes?