On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:08 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)?
codesearch shows a few users of mutex, although not nearly as many as sched itself. A couple of those seemed to think it was for threading, which I think is a good reason to at least rename it. ... Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if half the uses mistakenly believe it's a thread-safe mutex. It's disturbingly common to see them loop until .testandset() returns true (which will always be on the first call, or never.) That method shouldn't exist. It's not worth the effort of redesigning such an obscure module, so I say just rip it out. -- Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus _______________________________________________ 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
