Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > 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.
I don't see how it's an objection. If you have a condition variable you just use the cv's timeout feature, don't you? I guess there are already tons of combinations which don't make sense anyway. > 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.) What do you mean by thread interruption? Cancellation? > 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. Well, it's pretty basic functionality provided by the underlying OS APIs, which is why I think it would be good to expose it. I remember being annoyed by its absence, but it was a long time ago and I don't remember which problem I was trying to solve. (and it's safer than thread cancellation ;-)) ---------- _______________________________________ 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
