> It's too bad they exposed the GIL to C extension authors. As I understand it, yes, that has been one of the main obstacles to removing the GIL. The current w

> It's too bad they exposed the GIL to C extension authors. As I understand it, yes, that has been one of the main obstacles to removing the GIL. The current way forward seems to be to make all the interpreter state per-thread, so that each thread could have a separate interpreter; this would make the GIL unnnecessary, but of course one would still need synchronization primitives like mutexes to control access to data shared between threads.