homepage

According to http://docs.python.org/library/threading.html#condition-objects, threading.Condition is a class. However, in fact it turns out to be function that constructs a _Condition instance.
I don't know the reason for that, but it seems to me that either Condition should be a class, or the reason for it being a function should be documented so that people who I would like to inherit from Conditionknow if that is not supported, or if they can safely inherit from _Condition instead.

> According to http://docs.python.org/library/threading.html#condition-objects, threading.Condition is a class.
Nope, it's a factory, and it's written in the doc:
"threading.Condition()
A factory function that returns a new condition variable object. A condition variable allows one or more threads to wait until they are notified by another thread.
See Condition Objects."
It has been changed in Python 3.3 (#10968): threading.Condition is now a class, instead of a factory.

On 09/13/2011 07:41 PM, STINNER Victor wrote:
> 
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
> 
>> According to http://docs.python.org/library/threading.html#condition-objects, threading.Condition is a class.
> 
> Nope, it's a factory, and it's written in the doc:
> 
> "threading.Condition()
> A factory function that returns a new condition variable object. A condition variable allows one or more threads to wait until they are notified by another thread.
> 
> See Condition Objects."
Yes, but further down it still says:
"""
class threading.Condition([lock])
 If the lock argument is given and not None, [....]
"""
Best,
 -Nikolaus

> Yes, but further down it still says:
>
> """
> class threading.Condition([lock])
>
> If the lock argument is given and not None, [....]
> """
What do you suggest? Replace it by class threading._Condition?

> What do you suggest? Replace it by class threading._Condition?
-1 on this
IMHO just documenting the situation as it is would make more sense

On 09/14/2011 04:29 AM, STINNER Victor wrote:
> 
> STINNER Victor <victor.stinner@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
> 
>> Yes, but further down it still says:
>>
>> """
>> class threading.Condition([lock])
>>
>> If the lock argument is given and not None, [....]
>> """
> 
> What do you suggest? Replace it by class threading._Condition?
I don't have an optimal solution that would fit into the prescribed
layout. I think the best we can do is keep calling it class threading
Condition, but mention in the very first sentence that it isn't actually
a class:
class threading.Condition([lock]):
 threading.Condition is not actually a class but a factory function.
 The returned instance, however, is guaranteed to have the behaviour
 of a threading.Condition class as described here.
 If the lock argument...
Best,
 -Nikolaus

I don't think this is important enough. It's now a class anyway in 3.3+.

I recommend just closing this.