On Sun, 06 May 2012 18:58:10 +0100 shibturn <shibt...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/05/2012 5:07pm, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:56:55 +0200 > >> summary: > >> Make AcquirerProxy.acquire() support timeout argument > > > > Should it have a Misc/NEWS entry? (and a doc addition perhaps?) > > Since proxies for locks/semaphores are supposed to work the same way as > the proxied object from threading, one could argue that the lack of > support in 3.2 was a bug.
Ok; if it's a bug it should have a NEWS entry, though. > I notice now that multiprocessing.*.acquire() and threading.*.wait() > treat negative timeouts as zero timeouts. On the other hand, > threading.*.acquire() treat negative timeouts as infinite. > > Maybe these inconsistencies should be documented or eliminated? I don't know. Ideally both would have raised ValueError on negative timeouts, but it's probably too late :-) cheers Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
