shwouchk added the comment:
I agree it might be less efficient, but sometimes it is the price to pay for
greater generality/simplicity. After all, If I *really* wanted efficiency
perhaps I would have written everything in C++.
Anyway, thanks!
n.p.
1. "but should not cause any pra
shwouchk added the comment:
Also, of course I did this or I would not have stumbled into this issue...
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue18
shwouchk added the comment:
Richard,
I think you missed my point. First, yes I did do that.
Second ("the point"):
I did this to use the same abstraction that was used extensively for other
purposes, instead of recreating the same abstraction with a deque as its basis.
Component r
shwouchk added the comment:
The major difference with the issue you referenced is that the behavior in
#17985 is clearly stated and warned against in the docs (Queue.Empty being
inconsistent with Queue.size), whereas this is not.
As for the actual behavior problem: Imagine you build an
New submission from shwouchk:
Consider this:
$ python
Python 2.7.4 (default, Apr 19 2013, 18:28:01)
[GCC 4.7.3] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> import multiprocessing as mp
