Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-18 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 2007-04-18, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> The problem is that sometimes the gui thread has something to show >> too. With the added problem that the code wanting to show something >> doesn't know when it is executing the gui th

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-18 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 2007-04-17, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17 Apr 2007 14:32:01 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On 2007-04-17, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On 17 Apr 2007 13:32:52 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2007-04-17, Hendrik

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-17 Thread Hendrik van Rooyen
"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is that sometimes the gui thread has something to show > too. With the added problem that the code wanting to show something > doesn't know when it is executing the gui thread or an other. So > it is very difficult to avoid the gui thread

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-17 Thread Diez B. Roggisch
> The problem is that sometimes the gui thread has something to show > too. With the added problem that the code wanting to show something > doesn't know when it is executing the gui thread or an other. So > it is very difficult to avoid the gui thread putting things on the > queue. But since the g

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-17 Thread Jean-Paul Calderone
On 17 Apr 2007 14:32:01 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2007-04-17, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 17 Apr 2007 13:32:52 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>On 2007-04-17, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [snip] >> Not sure I

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-17 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 2007-04-17, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17 Apr 2007 13:32:52 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On 2007-04-17, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [snip] > >>> Not sure I understand this - it sounds vaguely incestous to me. >>> I normally use a

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-17 Thread Jean-Paul Calderone
On 17 Apr 2007 13:32:52 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 2007-04-17, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] >> Not sure I understand this - it sounds vaguely incestous to me. >> I normally use a GUI with two queues, one for input, one for >> output, to two thread

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-17 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 2007-04-17, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 2007-04-17, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > "Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> The problem is this doesn't work well if you have multiple pr

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-17 Thread Hendrik van Rooyen
"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-04-17, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> The problem is this doesn't work well if you have multiple producers. > >> One producer can be finished while the other is still pu

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 2007-04-17, Hendrik van Rooyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> The problem is this doesn't work well if you have multiple producers. >> One producer can be finished while the other is still putting values >> on the queue. >> >> The solution I have b

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 2007-04-17, Paul Rubin wrote: > Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The problem is this doesn't work well if you have multiple producers. >> One producer can be finished while the other is still putting values >> on the queue. > > Right, you'd wait for all the producers to finish, then

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Hendrik van Rooyen
"Antoon Pardon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is this doesn't work well if you have multiple producers. > One producer can be finished while the other is still putting values > on the queue. > > The solution I have been thinking on is the following. > > Add an open and close operation.

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Paul Rubin
Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The problem is this doesn't work well if you have multiple producers. > One producer can be finished while the other is still putting values > on the queue. Right, you'd wait for all the producers to finish, then finish the queue: for p in producer_th

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Paul Rubin
Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Instead of putting multiple sentinels, just pre-construct the iterator > object. > work = iter(q.get, sentinel) > Re-use the same iterator in each thread, and you'll get the behavior > you're after. Whaaat??? Can I do that? It looks l

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Jean-Paul Calderone
On 15 Apr 2007 23:12:34 -0700, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: >I'd like to suggest adding a new operation > > Queue.finish() > >This puts a special sentinel object on the queue. The sentinel >travels through the queue like any other object, however, when >q.get() encounters

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Klaas
On Apr 15, 11:12 pm, Paul Rubin wrote: > I'd like to suggest adding a new operation > >Queue.finish() > > This puts a special sentinel object on the queue. The sentinel > travels through the queue like any other object, however, when > q.get() encounters the sentinel

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Antoon Pardon
On 2007-04-16, Paul Rubin wrote: > I'd like to suggest adding a new operation > >Queue.finish() > > This puts a special sentinel object on the queue. The sentinel > travels through the queue like any other object, however, when > q.get() encounters the sentinel, it raises StopIteration instea

Re: Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-16 Thread Peter Otten
Paul Rubin wrote: > I'd like to suggest adding a new operation > >Queue.finish() > > This puts a special sentinel object on the queue. The sentinel > travels through the queue like any other object, however, when > q.get() encounters the sentinel, it raises StopIteration instead > of return

Queue enhancement suggestion

2007-04-15 Thread Paul Rubin
I'd like to suggest adding a new operation Queue.finish() This puts a special sentinel object on the queue. The sentinel travels through the queue like any other object, however, when q.get() encounters the sentinel, it raises StopIteration instead of returning the sentinel. It does not remo