On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 11:28:55AM +0100, Christian Heimes wrote: > Your wrapper is a good implementation. I even found an inconvenience in > my implementation when I studied your code. My wrapper raised an > exception when a closed fd was removed with EPOLL_CTL_DEL.
It should be a good reference, it's gotten a lot of testing. > > I would also claim that adding a new interface to accomplish the same > > task is not more pythonic. But I did write the python-epoll module in > > question, so I may be a bit biased. > > I agree with Gregory on that part of your answer. I think we can both be right. The select.poll() code does not really map to the low level poll() call. In fact, it maps much better to the epoll() call. It appears that your new API is really a superset of the the select.poll() interface. The only thing which keeps a user from just importing your module and using it with code which uses the existing interface is that you've changed names. Why not change the names so that it Just Works? Also, everything but the edge-triggered functionality could be incorporated back into the select.poll() interface (where "everything" means the modify() call.) Ross
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
