On 22.08.2013 00:50, Fábio Santos wrote: >>> That said, there is never a need for deriving >>> from the Thread class, you can also use it to run a function without >>> that. That way is IMHO clearer because the threading.Thread instance is >>> not the thread, just like a File instance is not a file. Both just >>> represent handles for manipulating the actual thing. >> >> Huh? That I find most curious. >> >> I *always* derive from threading.Thread and really like the way that >> thread setup works (instanciate Thread handle, call start). Very >> intuitive, never had the problems with clarity that you mentioned. Could >> you elaborate on your suggestion? I don't seem to quite get it I'm afraid. >> > I cannot tell whether you are trolling or are just new to this,
Neither! > but you > don't always have to use threads. Obviously, I meant "I always derive from threading.Thread when I need to work with a thread". Thought this was blatantly obvious. That said, I think I also grossly misunderstood Ulrichs posting. He was talking about there no need deriving from threading.Thread when you don't need threads. What I understood was that, in order to use Threads, you could also just pass a closure to some static function of threading in order to fire up a thread. That may or may not be true. However, I find deriving from Thread, instanciating an object and firing up the thread by using ".start()" much more intuitive. Hope that clears it all up. Best regards, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1...@speranza.aioe.org> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
