shwouchk added the comment:
Richard,
I think you missed my point. First, yes I did do that.
Second ("the point"):
I did this to use the same abstraction that was used extensively for other
purposes, instead of recreating the same abstraction with a deque as its basis.
Component reusability is one of the main points of OOP, after all...
And no, an item is not necessarily available - sometimes there is a message and
sometimes there isn't. But if one was put into the queue, I claim that I should
be able to rely on it being available right away in the application logic.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue18277>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
