Home Original page

[Python-ideas] channel (synchronous queue)

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Sun Feb 19 18:44:00 CET 2012 
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Sturla Molden <sturla at molden.no> wrote:
> Den 19.02.2012 18:27, skrev Sturla Molden:
>
>> Den 19.02.2012 18:18, skrev Antoine Pitrou:
>>>
>>> This begs the question: what does it achieve? You know that the data has
>>> been "received" on the other side (i.e. get() has been called), but this
>>> doesn't tell you anything was done with the data, so: why is this an useful
>>> way to synchronize?
>>
>>
>> I think it achieves nothing, except making deadlocks more likely.
>
>
> Which is to say, I just wanted to prove how ridiculously simple Matt
> Joiner's complaint about a "channel" was.

I may be taking this out of context, but I have a really hard time
understanding what you were trying to say. What does it mean for a
complaint to be simple? Did you leave out a word in haste? (I know
that happens a lot to me. :-)

> The multiprocessing barrier on the other hand is quite useful. (Though the
> butterfly method is not the most efficient implementation of a barrier.)

Glad to see some real code. It's probably time to move the code
samples to the bug tracker where they can be reviewed and have a
chance of getting incorporated into the next release.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
More information about the Python-ideas mailing list