A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-August/016848.html below:

[Python-Dev] Any objections to adding threading.Timer?

[Python-Dev] Any objections to adding threading.Timer? [Python-Dev] Any objections to adding threading.Timer?Martin v. Loewis martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de
Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:21:15 +0200
> 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

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470&func=detail&aid=428326

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
alternative.

Regards,
Martin



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