On 2012-01-30 01:46, Victor Stinner wrote:
But why would you want to pass a float? It seems like API abuse to me.
If something should be changed, Semaphore(arg) should raise a
TypeError if arg is not an integer.
Short version:
I propose the the change to be
- while self._value == 0:
+ while self._value < 1:
This should not change the flow when Semaphore._value is an int.
Longer explanation:
I thought it is surprising to use math.floor() for threading.Semaphore,
but now as you propose, we will need to use something like
int(math.floor(value)) in Python2.x - which is even more surprising.
That is because math.floor() (and round() for that matter) return a
float object in Python2.x.
Note: isinstance(4.0, numbers.Integral) is False, even in Python3.x, but
until now 4.0 was valid as a value for Semaphore(). Also, using the
builtin int()/math.trunc() on a float is probably not what you want
here, but rather math.floor().
The value argument given to threading.Semaphore() is really a duck (or
an object) that can be compared to 0 and 1, incremented by 1 and
decremented by 1. These are properties that fit float. Why should you
force the entire builtin int behavior on that object?
I agree that using a float as the counter smells bad, but at times you
might have something like a fractional resource (which is different from
a floating point number). In such cases Semaphore.acquire(), after the
tiny patch above, can be thought as checking if you have at least one
"unit of resource" available. If you do have at least one such resource
- acquire it. This will make sure the invariant "The counter can never
go below zero" holds.
Regards,
TB
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
