On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Yuriy Taraday <yorik....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Should transports be bound to event loop on creation? I wonder, what > would > > happen if someone changes current event loop between these calls. > > Yes, this is what the transport implementation does. > But in theory every sock_ call is independent and returns Future bound to current event loop. So if one change event loop with active transport, nothing bad should happen. Or I'm missing something. > > I understand why it should be a method, but still if it's a getter, it > > should have either get_ or is_ prefix. > > Why? That's not a universal coding standard. The names seem clear enough > to me. > When I see (in autocompletion, for example) or remember name like "running", it triggers thought that it's a field. When I remember smth like is_running, it definitely associates with method. > > Are there any way to change this with 'Final' PEP? > > No, the concurrent.futures package has been released (I forget if it > was Python 3.2 or 3.3) and we're bound to backwards compatibility. > Also I really don't think it's a big deal at all. > Yes, not a big deal. > > >> > 5. I think, protocol and transport methods' names are not easy or > >> > understanding enough: > >> > - write_eof() does not write anything but closes smth, should be > >> > close_writing or smth alike; > >> > - the same way eof_received() should become smth like receive_closed; > >> > >> I am indeed struggling a bit with these names, but "writing an EOF" is > >> actually how I think of this (maybe I am dating myself to the time of > >> mag tapes though :-). > >> > > I never saw a computer working with a tape, but it's clear to me what > does > > they do. > > I've just imagined the amount of words I'll have to say to students about > > EOFs instead of simple "it closes our end of one half of a socket". > > But which half? A socket is two independent streams, one in each > direction. Twisted uses half_close() for this concept but unless you > already know what this is for you are left wondering which half. Which > is why I like using 'write' in the name. Yes, 'write' part is good, I should mention it. I meant to say that I won't need to explain that there were days when we had to handle a special marker at the end of file. -- Kind regards, Yuriy.
_______________________________________________ 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
