Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Le vendredi 06 septembre 2013 à 00:19 +0000, Tim Peters a écrit : > Tim Peters added the comment: > > So you're not concerned about a now-private API (which used to be > advertised), but are concerned about a user mucking with a new private > lock in an exceedingly unlikely (in the absence of malice) way. That > clarifies things ;-)
:-) The only reason I'm concerned about the user mucking with the private lock is that it's a new opportunity that's opened. But, yeah, I could remove the weakref and only keep the lock. The code would only be ~10 lines shorter, though. What do other people think? > in its end-of-life code. Essentially rolling their own clumsy variant > of a Semaphore. I guess they spell it like: import clumsy_threading as threading > I've seen code like that "in the wild". Well, I've sure seen my share of sleep() calls as a synchronization measure too (and removed a number of them)... :-) That's one of the reasons I added the timeout arguments, actually. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18808> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
