On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Gorlon the Impossible wrote: > >> Is it possible to run this function and still be able to do other >> things with Python while it is running? Is that what threading is >> about? > > Threading's a good answer if you really need to share all your memory. A > multiprocess solution is probably preferrable, though it depends on the > architecture.
I'm really curious about this assertion, which both you and Ben Finney make. Why do you think multiprocessing is preferable to multithreading? I've done a fair amount of threads programming, although in java rather than python (and i doubt very much that it's less friendly in python than java!), and i found it really fairly straightforward. Sure, if you want to do complicated stuff, it can get complicated, but for this sort of thing, it should be a doddle. Certainly, it seems to me, *far* easier than doing anything involving multiple processes, which always seems like pulling teeth to me. For example, his Impossibleness presumably has code which looks like this: do_a_bunch_of_midi(do, re, mi) do_something_else(fa, so, la) All he has to do to get thready with his own bad self is: import threading threading.Thread(do_a_bunch_of_midi, (do, re, mi)).start() do_something_else(fa, so, la) How hard is that? Going multiprocess involves at least twice as much code, if not ten times more, will have lower performance, and will make future changes - like interaction between the two parallel execution streams - colossally harder. tom -- Remember when we said there was no future? Well, this is it. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list