Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@gmail.com> added the comment: I don't object strongly, but since locks are "supposed" to be held for short amounts of time, a timeout shouldn't be that useful, and when people really need it they can put it together with a condition variable. Timeouts also interact poorly with condition variables: you can time out the initial acquire, but if you wait on a condition there's no place to put the timeout on the reacquire.
Given that it's hard to pick a timeout in most cases anyway, I think it'd be a much bigger win to figure out thread interruption. (Yes, I know that's hard, and that I promised to do it a long while ago and never got around to it.) That said, I have no objections at all to adding an internal timeout ability for use by Condition.wait, and if you're still enthusiastic about adding the timeout given the above argument, I won't block you. ---------- nosy: +jyasskin _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7316> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com