[Python-Dev] Any objections to adding threading.Timer?
Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
[sorry for the delay, network connectivity problems]
Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>> I'm not objecting, precisely, but I have an allergic reaction to the way
>> timed Event() works, even though there's really no other way to work it.
>> I think that encouraging people to use it is a Bad Idea.
> Can you elaborate in more detail what your concern about the timed
> Event() is? This one itself looks fine; if anything, _Condition.wait
> looks disturbing. Could you also kindly put your comments into
Hrm. I'll put my comments there if you ask, but my objection is more
general than this specific feature. As you note, I'm actually objecting
to the whole Condition.wait() feature. The main problem with this kind
of timeout is the way the granularity works; there was a recent post to
c.l.py where someone was complaining that it took a full second to
respond to the Event() getting set.
Fred: I think I did send a note to python-docs, but maybe I should file
an SF doc bug?
At the same time, when you really do want timeout functionality, there
isn't any other way to do it in a cross-platform way. I think most
people claim they want a timeout when they really shouldn't, so I'd like
to make the feature less accessible.
> There are a number of procedural objections with regard to this patch
> (license, missing documentation); if you can add significant technical
> objections, that might be a reason to reject it - or to find a better
Well, I can't quite call this a "significant" technical objection, given
that this is the only good cross-platform scheme in a threaded
environment. I'm just whining because I don't like it anyway. ;-)
--- Aahz (@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
I don't really mind a person having the last whine, but I do mind someone
else having the last self-righteous whine.