Message71426
| Author |
jnoller |
| Recipients |
barry, benjamin.peterson, jnoller, mishok13, ncoghlan |
| Date |
2008年08月19日.15:36:29 |
| SpamBayes Score |
6.663709e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<4222a8490808190836ib5f1eefj45b1014742ad9091@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1219160096.2.0.499511557815.issue3352@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Nick Coghlan <report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> is_alive appears to be a potentially expensive check for the
> multiprocessing side of things, which is why I'm inclined to leave it as
> a method. "if t.is_alive():" actually reads better to me than "if
> t.alive:" anyway.
Dang, I already cut that one over. |
|