> Guido> I wonder if the right refactoring wouldn't be to add an acquire > Guido> with timeout method to the built-in lock type? [Sjoerd] > In my case I use await_condition() to gracefully empty a Queue of database > connection objects at termination time. [...] > It's a bit clunky, but I wouldn't be able to use an acquire() with a > timeout directly. I'd need a Queue.get with a timeout as well. Yes, but that API change would be useful anyway. > Besides, wouldn't there be places where this progressive backoff > would be useful in non-threaded contexts? Unclear, but it's unclear to me if it really is more readable with a helper function to express the condition passed in rather than just written out explicitly (everyone writes these a little different, and that's just fine with me). --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