On Jun 11, 3:07 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 11:33 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I pasted my current solution athttp://codepad.org/FXF2SWmg. Any
> > feedback, especially if it has to do with proving or disproving its
> > correctness, will be appreciat
On Jun 11, 10:13 am, Jean-Paul Calderone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:46:37 -0700 (PDT), George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Jun 10, 11:47 pm, Larry Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I had a little trouble understanding what exact problem it is that you ar
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'd like some feedback on a solution to a variant of the producer-
>consumer problem. My first few attempts turned out to deadlock
>occasionally; this one seems to be deadlock-free so far but I can't
>tell if it's provably
On Jun 10, 11:33 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I pasted my current solution athttp://codepad.org/FXF2SWmg. Any
> feedback, especially if it has to do with proving or disproving its
> correctness, will be appreciated.
It seems like you're reinventing the wheel. The Queue class do
On Jun 11, 6:00 am, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 1:59 am, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why not use a normal Queue, put a dummy value (such as None) in when
> > you're producer has finished, and have the main thread use the normal
> > Thread.join() method o
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:46:37 -0700 (PDT), George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:47 pm, Larry Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had a little trouble understanding what exact problem it is that you are
trying to solve but I'm pretty sure that you can do it with one of two metho
George Sakkis wrote:
On Jun 10, 11:47 pm, Larry Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had a little trouble understanding what exact problem it is that you are
trying to solve but I'm pretty sure that you can do it with one of two methods:
Ok, let me try again with a different example: I want to d
> Sounds like a sentinel would work for this. The producer puts a
> specific object (say, None) in the queue and the consumer checks for
> this object and stops consuming when it sees it. But that seems so
> obvious I suspect there's something else up.
There's a decent implementation of thi
On Jun 11, 1:59 am, Rhamphoryncus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not use a normal Queue, put a dummy value (such as None) in when
> you're producer has finished, and have the main thread use the normal
> Thread.join() method on all your child threads?
I just gave two reasons:
- Concurrency / in
On Jun 10, 11:33 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like some feedback on a solution to a variant of the producer-
> consumer problem. My first few attempts turned out to deadlock
> occasionally; this one seems to be deadlock-free so far but I can't
> tell if it's provably correct,
Why not use a normal Queue, put a dummy value (such as None) in when
you're producer has finished, and have the main thread use the normal
Thread.join() method on all your child threads?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jun 10, 11:47 pm, Larry Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I had a little trouble understanding what exact problem it is that you are
> trying to solve but I'm pretty sure that you can do it with one of two
> methods:
Ok, let me try again with a different example: I want to do what can
be ea
George Sakkis wrote:
I'd like some feedback on a solution to a variant of the producer-
consumer problem. My first few attempts turned out to deadlock
occasionally; this one seems to be deadlock-free so far but I can't
tell if it's provably correct, and if so, whether it can be
simplified.
The g
13 matches
Mail list logo
