[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Christophe
>
>
>>Same reason that there is a warning in the "os.access" manual
>
>
> I understand the if file exists open it code.
>
> I looked at the os.access documentation and see no "warning" or "not
> reliable" wording there.
> 6.1.4 Files and Directories
>
Christophe
> Same reason that there is a warning in the "os.access" manual
I understand the if file exists open it code.
I looked at the os.access documentation and see no "warning" or "not
reliable" wording there.
6.1.4 Files and Directories
access(path, mode)
Olaf
--
http://mail.python
On 2006-05-04, Olaf Meding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> return result before that line, some other thread added a value !
>
> Sure, but that is the nature of using threads and a mutex.
Yes.
> I hope you are you not saying that every function that uses a
> mutex should have a comment saying th
Olaf Meding a écrit :
>>return result before that line, some other thread added a value !
>
>
> Sure, but that is the nature of using threads and a mutex. I hope you are
> you not saying that every function that uses a mutex should have a comment
> saying this is not "reliable"?
That function
"Olaf Meding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> return result before that line, some other thread added a value !
>
> Sure, but that is the nature of using threads and a mutex. I hope you are
> you not saying that every function that uses a mutex should have a comment
> saying this is not "reliabl
> return result before that line, some other thread added a value !
Sure, but that is the nature of using threads and a mutex. I hope you are
you not saying that every function that uses a mutex should have a comment
saying this is not "reliable"?
Olaf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Tim and Grant
>
>
> if q.empty():
> return
>
>
> Of course you explanation is understood and ideally should be included
> as a note in the Python documentation. And the "not reliable" should
> be removed from the documentation!
>
> Anyway, many than
Tim Peters wrote:
> That puts them in the
> "attractive nuisance" category for many people.
Argh. That gives me bad flashbacks to my torts final from Mon, which had a
bona-fide "attractive nuisance" problem on it. Damn you, Tim Peters! ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Tim and Grant
>>>
if q.empty():
return
>>>
Of course you explanation is understood and ideally should be included
as a note in the Python documentation. And the "not reliable" should
be removed from the documentation!
Anyway, many thanks for your explanations (I feel "safer" now).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Because of multithreading semantics, this is not reliable. This
> sentence is found in the Python documentation for "7.8.1 Queue
> Objects".
>
> This scares me! Why would Queue.qsize(), Queue.empty( ), and a
> Queue.full() not be reliable?
Because
On 2006-05-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because of multithreading semantics, this is not reliable.
> This sentence is found in the Python documentation for "7.8.1
> Queue Objects".
>
> This scares me! Why would Queue.qsize(), Queue.empty(
Because of multithreading semantics, this is not reliable. This
sentence is found in the Python documentation for "7.8.1 Queue
Objects".
This scares me! Why would Queue.qsize(), Queue.empty( ), and a
Queue.full() not be reliable?
Looking at the source code of Queue.py, all 3 calls u
12 matches
Mail list logo
