Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com added the comment:
Unless you have a reason why imap() does not solve the problem I will
eventually close the issue as rejected.
--
resolution: - rejected
stage: - committed/rejected
status: open - pending
___
andrew cooke and...@acooke.org added the comment:
hi - i'm the original author (may be using a different account). as far as i
remember, i raised this because it seemed relevant given the link i gave. if
you've looked at the issue and think your approach would work, or that this
should be
Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com added the comment:
I'll close then.
--
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue12897
___
Richard Oudkerk shibt...@gmail.com added the comment:
If you want lazy operation then you should use imap(f, it[, chunksize]) rather
than using map_async(f, it).
This will return an iterator rather than a list. Also, the iterator's next()
method has a timeout argument. (chunksize is the
New submission from andrew cooke and...@acooke.org:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7306522/combining-itertools-and-multiprocessing/7307078
suggests (and the idea itself seems reasonable) that it would sometimes be
useful for multiprocessing to operate correctly (ie lazily) with lazy input
Antoine Pitrou pit...@free.fr added the comment:
Since it's a feature request, I would suggest to look whether it can apply to
concurrent.futures instead.
--
nosy: +pitrou
versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
