On 29/04/20 2:12 pm, Eric Snow wrote:
One of the main inspirations for the proposed channels is CSP (and somewhat relatedly, my in-depth experience with Go). Channels are more than just a thread-safe data transport between interpreters.
It's a while since I paid attention to the fine details of CSP. I'll have to do some research on that.
Furthermore, IMHO "release" is better at communicating the per-interpreter nature than "close".
Channels are a similar enough concept to pipes that I think it would be confusing to have "close" mean "close for all interpreters". Everyone understands that "closing" a pipe only means you're closing your reference to one end of it, and they will probably assume closing a channel means the same. Maybe it would be better to have a different name such as "destroy" for a complete shutdown.
With pipes the main difference is how many actors are involved. Pipes involve one sender and one receiver, right?
Not necessarily. Mostly they're used that way, but there's nothing to stop multiple processes having a handle on the reading or writing end of a pipe simultaneously. Of course you have to be careful about how you interleave the reads and writes if you do that. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/PTI5W4SYNV4C73D3XJGOQCFGGL6EVLUI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
