Thats awesome. Its time I migrate to 3 :)
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:25 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Abhijeet Mahagaonkar
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I was able to isolate that major chunk of run time is eaten up in
> open
On Apr 8, 12:25 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Abhijeet Mahagaonkar
>
> wrote:
> > I was able to isolate that major chunk of run time is eaten up in opening a
> > webpages, reading from them and extracting text.
> > I wanted to know if there is a way to concurrently c
On 08/04/2011 11:31 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:41 AM, MRAB wrote:
On 08/04/2011 08:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
[snip]
I don't know what's the most Pythonesque option, but if you already
have specific Python code for each of your functions, it's probably
going to be easi
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:41 AM, MRAB wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 08:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> I don't know what's the most Pythonesque option, but if you already
>> have specific Python code for each of your functions, it's probably
>> going to be easiest to spawn threads for them all.
On 08/04/2011 08:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
[snip]
I don't know what's the most Pythonesque option, but if you already
have specific Python code for each of your functions, it's probably
going to be easiest to spawn threads for them all.
"Pythonesque" refers to "Monty Python's Flying Circus". Th
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Abhijeet Mahagaonkar
wrote:
> I was able to isolate that major chunk of run time is eaten up in opening a
> webpages, reading from them and extracting text.
> I wanted to know if there is a way to concurrently calling the functions.
So, to clarify: you have code th
