Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well have a look at what I have written over the weekend. It uses > a seperate thread with one pipe for a wakeup mechanisme.
Thanks, I'll look at it. Why don't you use usleep instead of a pipe? I decided over the weekend that using a separate thread with usleep is the simplest thing to do in pure Python. If you want to use sigalarm, that should be put in the low level C sigalarm handler so it gets taken care separately from the Python interpreter does anything with the signal. Locks should also be low level primitives. I don't know how this stuff maps onto PyPy but I sincerely hope the looping stuff goes away. Having a series of processing steps connected by queues is a perfectly good way to organize a program, but if there's even just 20 steps, then waiting for all those 50 msec wakeups adds a whole second to the processing latency if the system has been sleeping for a while. The latency really only needs to be in the microseconds on a system with efficient enough threading. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
