Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@gmail.com> added the comment: On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Antoine Pitrou <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: >> I spent some time thinking of a name. I tried wait_predicate and >> predicate_wait, but wait_for seemed natural. Any other ideas? >> How about wait_until_true? > > wait_for is ok IMO.
Agreed. >> My original method had this as a free function, but I moved it into >> the Condition because I could see no other kind of primitive that >> would use it. I agree that it is unfortunate to pull what is >> essentially a utility function into the Condition variable, so I am >> leaning towards keeping it a module function. > > I'm not sure I see the point. It's an operation on a Condition variable, > so it's natural to have it as a Condition method. A module function > would feel rather weird. Yeah, it should primarily be used as a Condition method. I was suggesting implementing that Condition method in terms of a threading function, which would also help other people trying to, say, mock Condition objects. But that's not a big deal, and I could be wrong about whether it's useful at all. As I said earlier, I'm happy with this patch either way. (Note that Condition.wait_for is helpful to people mocking Condition anyway, since the number of calls is much more fixed than the calls to Condition.wait.) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10260> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com