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 wouldYes, this is what the transport implementation does.
> happen if someone changes current event loop between these calls.
Why? That's not a universal coding standard. The names seem clear enough to me.
> I understand why it should be a method, but still if it's a getter, it
> should have either get_ or is_ prefix.
No, the concurrent.futures package has been released (I forget if it
> Are there any way to change this with 'Final' PEP?
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.
But which half? A socket is two independent streams, one in each
>> > 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".
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.