On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Yuriy Taraday <yorik.sar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should transports be bound to event loop on creation? I wonder, what would
> happen if someone changes current event loop between these calls.

Yes, this is what the transport implementation does.

But in theory every sock_ call is independent and returns Future bound to current event loop.
So if one change event loop with active transport, nothing bad should happen. Or I'm missing something.


> I understand why it should be a method, but still if it's a getter, it
> should have either get_ or is_ prefix.

Why? That's not a universal coding standard. The names seem clear enough to me.

When I see (in autocompletion, for example) or remember name like "running", it triggers thought that it's a field. When I remember smth like is_running, it definitely associates with method.


> Are there any way to change this with 'Final' PEP?

No, the concurrent.futures package has been released (I forget if it
was Python 3.2 or 3.3) and we're bound to backwards compatibility.
Also I really don't think it's a big deal at all.

Yes, not a big deal.

>> > 5. I think, protocol and transport methods' names are not easy or
>> > understanding enough:
>> > - write_eof() does not write anything but closes smth, should be
>> > close_writing or smth alike;
>> > - the same way eof_received() should become smth like receive_closed;
>>
>> I am indeed struggling a bit with these names, but "writing an EOF" is
>> actually how I think of this (maybe I am dating myself to the time of
>> mag tapes though :-).
>>
> I never saw a computer working with a tape, but it's clear to me what does
> they do.
> I've just imagined the amount of words I'll have to say to students about
> EOFs instead of simple "it closes our end of one half of a socket".

But which half? A socket is two independent streams, one in each
direction. Twisted uses half_close() for this concept but unless you
already know what this is for you are left wondering which half. Which
is why I like using 'write' in the name.

Yes, 'write' part is good, I should mention it. I meant to say that I won't need to explain that there were days when we had to handle a special marker at the end of file.

--

Kind regards, Yuriy.