sbt <shibt...@gmail.com> added the comment: > Wouldn't it be simpler with a mp.Condition?
Well, it is a fair bit shorter than the implementation in threading.py. But that is not a fair comparison because it does implement reset(). I was trying to avoid using shared memory/ctypes since multiprocessing.synchronize does not currently use them. However, I think it would be better (and much simpler) to just subclass threading.Barrier, making self._state and self._counter properties which delegate to RawValue objects. That gets rid of the differences in behaviour. I have this working, although I had to monkey patch multiprocessing.Condition to add a wait_for() method. See Issue 14087. > Otherwise, this should be added to Lib/multiprocesing.synchronize.py, > and the tests to test_multiprocessing. I will provide a patch later. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14059> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
