On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [SNIP - Alex's well-argued reasons to keep sched] > > > > And then, if needed, we can discuss pure simulation (as opposed to > > simulation-testing of systems designed to normally use the "real" > > sched). But already it seems to me there are plenty of use cases to > > justify retaining sched in the library...! > > OK, sched stays. Do you need mutex to stay as-is, get rolled into > sched, or can we still ditch that module (at least publicly)?
I have no use case for mutex (nor anything against it either), so personally I'm +0 on removing it (just on the basis that it confuses me - it's documented as needing to be used with sched, but most examples I can find with google code search use it without sched, etc...). But I hope that somebody understanding its use cases better than me speaks!-) Alex _______________________________________________ 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
