Message157827
| Author |
Jim.Jewett |
| Recipients |
Jim.Jewett, docs@python, georg.brandl, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, sandro.tosi |
| Date |
2012年04月08日.23:59:03 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CA+OGgf7fkQNKzspSNTTgT-w53VBuoeLRh22wmxH3fOGnM3-Ctw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1333765937.29.0.197499608927.issue14502@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:32 PM, R. David Murray <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
> R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> added the comment:
> I, on the other hand, would prefer if it were made part of the API contract that an
> error is raised, and to fix any stdlib implementations *of that API* that don't conform
> to that. (That is, locks from other modules may well not follow that API, and their
> documentation should cover their API.)
Do you consider it reasonable that all stdlib Locks follow that API,
and change to raise either RuntimeError or a subclass?
I don't feel comfortable declaring that (not even only for future
feature releases), but if you do, or Guido does, or ... etc ... I'll
submit patches for at least dummy_threading and logging.
-jJ |
|