Thomas Wouters wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> * sched
>
> + Replaced by threading.Timer.
I don't see sched as obsoleted by threading.Timer. It's much simpler
to use (no need for locking) and more efficient (no legions of
sleeping threads). Instead, maybe it should be removed because it's
trivial to reimplement as well as being overshadowed by all the other
event loops built into bigger systems (tk, qt, gtk, twisted, etc)?
More importantly, sched doesn't use threads, so replacing it with
threading.Timer is inappropriate :) But yes, it should just go.
I agree that "use a real event loop engine" is a better argument for
getting rid of sched/mutex than "use threads".
Perhaps sched/mutex could be dumped in the Demo directory? Or perhaps we
should just get rid of them entirely and see if anyone with a real use
case complains - it's not like the modules will be particularly hard to
dig out of SVN if we decide we want to keep them after all.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
