Message 188080 - Python tracker

Message188080

Author	mark.dickinson
Recipients	eric.araujo, giampaolo.rodola, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, ssapin, stutzbach, terry.reedy
Date	2013-04-29.17:51:34
SpamBayes Score	-1.0
Marked as misclassified	Yes
Message-id	<1367257895.05.0.0418311316347.issue13742@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
Looks pretty good to me. - There's a bonus print call in the diff. - Should the "len(self._data)" call be protected by the lock? I can't immediately think of any reason why that would be necessary (e.g., pushpop nd poppush never change the size of self._data, so there's no risk of getting a bogus length there), but the lack of the lock makes me nervous. - Support for iter() seems a bit out of place to me. What are the use-cases for this? Would it make sense to leave this out (for now)?

Content

Looks pretty good to me.

- There's a bonus print call in the diff.

- Should the "len(self._data)" call be protected by the lock?  I can't immediately think of any reason why that would be necessary (e.g., pushpop nd poppush never change the size of self._data, so there's no risk of getting a bogus length there), but the lack of the lock makes me nervous.

- Support for iter() seems a bit out of place to me.  What are the use-cases for this?  Would it make sense to leave this out (for now)?

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2013-04-29 17:51:35	mark.dickinson	set	recipients: + mark.dickinson, rhettinger, terry.reedy, giampaolo.rodola, stutzbach, eric.araujo, ssapin
2013-04-29 17:51:35	mark.dickinson	set	messageid: <1367257895.05.0.0418311316347.issue13742@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2013-04-29 17:51:35	mark.dickinson	link	issue13742 messages
2013-04-29 17:51:34	mark.dickinson	create