In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2005-11-16, Gorlon the Impossible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure how to phrase this question. I have a Python function >> that sends MIDI messages to a synth. When I run it, I of course have >> to wait until it is finished before I can do anything else with >> Python. Is it possible to run this function and still be able to do >> other things with Python while it is running? > >Yes. > >> Is that what threading is about? > >Exactly. Take a look at the "treading" module: > >http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-threading.html . . . I don't agree, Grant (although I salute the brevity of your follow-up), and a couple of other correspon- dents have already posted follow-ups that begin to explore the alternatives.
If I were pursuing this, the first question I'd have for Gorlon is whether he's OK with a "fire and for- get" model. By that, I mean to ask if it's OK to send the MIDI message, and then return immediately to other Python work, OR whether Gorlon also needs to stay in contact with the MIDI handler, and perhaps react especially when the MIDI handler finishes with the specific message. That choice is crucial in a good concurrency design. So, Gorlon, yes, threading is a prominent member of the family of facilities that address situations like yours. It's not the only one, though. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
