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/016911.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?Guido van Rossum guido@python.org
Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:06:14 -0400
> 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.

Hm, maybe we should think about adding some low-level thing somewhere
so that wait(timeout=...) can be implemented more efficiently?  I
agree that it's ugly now -- busy-waiting with a sleep time doubling
until it reaches 1 second...

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)



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