Message207896
| Author | Victor.Varvariuc |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Nam.Nguyen, Victor.Varvariuc, bquinlan, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2014-01-11.06:16:56 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1389421017.11.0.86042757136.issue14119@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Hi! Looks like your pseudocode will work as a workaround instead of monkey-patching! Still the my suggestion to add the line to code stays. self._count should be always equal to the length of self._work_queue? If yes, why duplication. If no - which one to use, why duplication? Also there is an additional lock. http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/queue.html#queue.Queue.task_done - there is a special method, why not using it? Looks like you think that `work_queue.task_done()` should not be added. I don't understand why, but you decide what's better for Python. Thank you for your time! Victor |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-01-11 06:16:57 | Victor.Varvariuc | set | recipients: + Victor.Varvariuc, bquinlan, r.david.murray, Nam.Nguyen |
| 2014-01-11 06:16:57 | Victor.Varvariuc | set | messageid: <1389421017.11.0.86042757136.issue14119@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014-01-11 06:16:57 | Victor.Varvariuc | link | issue14119 messages |
| 2014-01-11 06:16:56 | Victor.Varvariuc | create | |