Hello all.
It occurs to me that creating threads in Python is more awkward than it needs
to be. Every time I want to start a new thread, I end up writing the same thing
over and over again:
def target(*args, **kwds):
...
t = threading.Thread(target = target, args = <something>, kwargs= <something>)
t.start()
This becomes especially repetitive when calling a target function that only
makes sense when run in a new thread, such as a timer.
In my own code, I’ve taken to decorating functions that always run in new
threads. Then I can call the function using the usual function call syntax, and
have the new thread returned to me. With the decorator, the code reads instead:
@threaded
def target(*args, **kwds):
…
t = target(*args, **kwds)
This has a couple of advantages. I don’t have to import the threading module
all over my code. I can use the neater syntax of function calls. The function’s
definition makes it clear it’s returning a new thread since it’s decorated. It
gets the plumbing out of the way so I can concentrate more on what my code does
and less in how it does it.
It feels like the right place for this decorator is the standard library, so
I’ve created PR #91878 for it. @rhettinger suggests that this is a bit
premature, and that we should discuss it here first. Thoughts?
Cheers,
Barney.
_______________________________________________
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/Z6W56AQHBAA7PJ3HAUK6YQNMOJO27V6Z/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
