Oscar Benjamin writes:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 02:49, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
> > Thing is, this "mutual inclusion" condition isn't really about parsing
> > (ie, syntax)[1]; this is about semantics -- like all input validation.
> > I don't object to having it in argparse, but it's
Sorry, didn't see Jonathan's example.
On Sat, 2021-02-27 at 01:12 +, Paul Bryan wrote:
> Could somone provide a concrete example on a proposed use of such an
> asyncio.Barrier?
>
> On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 14:19 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:09 AM Yves Duprat
>
Could somone provide a concrete example on a proposed use of such an
asyncio.Barrier?
On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 14:19 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:09 AM Yves Duprat
> wrote:
> > I was expecting an explanation about the initial request.
> > Is there an oversight (??)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 10:09 AM Yves Duprat wrote:
> I was expecting an explanation about the initial request.
> Is there an oversight (??) or an another reason to not have a Barrier
> primitive in asyncio ?
>
Probably because nobody working on asyncio at the time had any experience
using
I was expecting an explanation about the initial request.
Is there an oversight (??) or an another reason to not have a
Barrier primitive in asyncio ?
@jonathan: as proposed, I will fill an issue on bugs.python.org.
Thank you Jonathan and Barry for the discussion
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 02:49, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
>
> David Mertz writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 1:38 PM Paul Korir wrote:
> >
> > > I've been using the argparse library for a long time and one use case
> that
> > > repeatedly shows us is the need to have two arguments appear
>> Why would you need locks for async? Is it to sync with things outside of
the async process?
`asyncio.Lock` is needed to lock across async operations. (If there is an
`await` in the body for the lock).
Le ven. 26 févr. 2021 à 10:45, Barry Scott a
écrit :
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2021, at 08:31,
> On 26 Feb 2021, at 08:31, Jonathan Slenders wrote:
>
> Barry,
>
> What you describe sounds like `asyncio.gather(...)` if I understand correctly.
>
> The thing with a Barier is that it's usable in situations where we don't know
> the other tasks. Maybe there is no reference to them from
Barry,
What you describe sounds like `asyncio.gather(...)` if I understand
correctly.
The thing with a Barier is that it's usable in situations where we don't
know the other tasks. Maybe there is no reference to them from the current
scope. Maybe they are even not yet created.
It certainly can
