On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 01:05:09PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> No, because the iteration would never happen. If the list is empty,
> a[1:] is also empty, and i==a[0] will never be evaluated. So it is
> safe. (But I agree that it's not instantly obvious.)
Oh yeah, you're right. I overthought it
You might do something like
if len(a) == 0 or all(i == a[0] for i in a[1:]):
This should be linear complexity and short circuiting and in general it
doesn't get much better than this. Though I wouldn't bet there isn't a
better (faster/clearer/more readable) solution.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at
Sorry for the latency.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 03:39:24PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > What I meant was, the error message is specific to futures in the
> > 'PENDING' state. Which should be set to 'RUNNING' before any actions
> > occur. So it appears the tasks weren't started at all.
>
> Ah. I don
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:15:04PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > For context:
> > https://github.com/ldo/dbussy/issues/13
> > https://gist.github.com/tu500/3232fe03bd1d85b1529c558f920b8e43
> >
> > It really feels like asyncio is loosing strong references to scheduled
> > tasks, as excplicitly keeping
On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 12:45:03AM +0100, i...@koeln.ccc.de wrote:
> Also, I may be overlooking things, but I haven't found a way to add a
> task before calling run_forever(), as asyncio will then say the loop
> isn't running yet. So I'm not sure how you would jumpstart in that case.
Ok, I was con
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 01:57:56PM -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > Which is what I want in this case. Scheduling a new (long-running) task
> > as a side effect, but returning early oneself. The new task can't be
> > awaited right there, because the creating one should return already.
>
> If you want t
This weird mixing was actually a side effect of me quickly coming up
with a small example, sorry for the confusion. I just saw, actually
using the same loop gets rid of the behavior in this case and now I'm
not sure about my assertions any more. Yet it still looks like asyncio
doen'st keep strong r
Hi all,
I'm having trouble with asyncio. Apparently tasks (asyncio.create_task)
are not kept referenced by asyncio itself, causing the task to be
cancelled when the creating function finishes (and noone is awaiting the
corresponding futue). Am I doing something wrong or is this expected
behavior?
