> > There is isRunning(). Isn't that enough? I realize it doesn't [I meant isAlive()] > > distinguish between "not yet running" and "no longer running", but > > your application state should be enough to distinguish between the > > two, right? > > I am trying to determine the state of a thread, and in particular > determine if it's safe to try to start it. Thus isRunning is explicitly > not enough. > > The result is in my own code I end up writing a status layer around the > thread, but I assume many other programmers have to do the same thing. I don't know about that. I almost always create a thread and then immediately start it, so I never have this problem. I assume most other programmers do the same thing. > It seems a rather roundabout way to do things when the threading Thread > object ought to have a pretty good idea what state it is in. I admit, the info is there, but not easily accessible. I copied the Java Thread class, which has the same interface "deficiency". I'm not totally against adding a way to determine a thread's state (with three outcomes: initial, started, stopped) but I'm not quite sure that your use case isn't the result of an awkward way of using threads, in which case I don't want to encourage that. :-) --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