On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Yuriy Taraday <yorik....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.
It is bound to the event loop whose sock_<call>() method you called. > So if one change event loop with active transport, nothing bad should > happen. Or I'm missing something. Changing event loops in the middle of event processing is not a common (or even useful) pattern. You start the event loop and then leave it alone. >> > 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. That must pretty specific to your personal experience. >> > 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. But even today you have to mark the end somehow, to distinguish it from "not done yet, more could be coming". The equivalent is typing ^D into a UNIX terminal (or ^Z on Windows). -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
