Jack Jansen wrote:
> Could the defenders of Stackless Python please explain _why_ this
> is such a great idea? Just and Christian seem to swear by it, but
> I'd like to hear of some simple examples of programming tasks
> that will be programmable in 50% less code with it (or 50% more
> understandable code, for that matter).
Here's the complete code for the download of a file (the data
connection of an FTP server):
def _doDnStream(self, binary=0):
mode = 'r'
if binary:
mode = mode + 'b'
f = open(self.cmdconn.filename, mode)
if self.cmdconn.filepos:
#XXX check length of file
f.seek(self.cmdconn.filepos, 0)
while 1:
if self.abort:
break
data = f.read(8192)
sz = len(data)
if sz:
if not binary:
data = '\r\n'.join(data.split('\n'))
self.write(data)
if sz < 8192:
break
[from the base class]
def write(self, msg):
while msg:
sent = self.dispatcher.write(self.sock, msg)
if sent == 0:
raise IOError, "unexpected EOF"
msg = msg[sent:]
Looks like blocking sockets, right? Wrong. That's a fully
multiplexed socket. About a dozen lines of code (hidden in
that dispatcher object) mean that I can write async without
using a state machine.
stackless-forever-ly y'rs
- Gordon
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4