➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2017-02-15 14:54 by slytomcat, last changed 2022-04-11 14:58 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Pull Requests | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| URL | Status | Linked | Edit |
| PR 191 | closed | slytomcat, 2017-02-20 09:44 | |
| Messages (6) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg287858 - (view) | Author: (slytomcat) * | Date: 2017-02-15 14:54 | |
I think that functionality of threading.Timer class can be easily extended to generate the sequence of runs with specified period. The idea comes from the GLib.timeout_add function.
Run method of threading.Timer should look like:
def run(self):
"""Continue execution after wait till function returns True"""
while(not self.finished.wait(self.interval)):
if not self.function(*self.args, **self.kwargs):
break
self.finished.set()
|
|||
| msg288398 - (view) | Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) *  |
Date: 2017-02-23 03:14 | |
Ideally, proposed API expansions should be based on a demonstrated user need. This API is over decade old and I don't recall a single user request for this functionality. A quick scan of StackOverflow didn't turn-up any questions or answers on the subject. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with the idea, but in the absence of demonstrated need, it is likely to become unused cruft with it attendant burden on maintenance and cognitive load. |
|||
| msg291155 - (view) | Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2017-04-05 05:37 | |
Antoine, do you care to make the call on this one? |
|||
| msg291163 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2017-04-05 06:54 | |
This will obviously break some existing code which passes a function returning true to Timer. I concur with Raymond: I don't think this is a good idea. Also, the Timer class itself is a rather simplistic answer to the problem of scheduling callbacks in the future (it uses a dedicated thread per callback, which is extremely wasteful). You'll find better solutions in more modern toolkits, such as asyncio; or you can easily write your own logic yourself. |
|||
| msg295251 - (view) | Author: Cheryl Sabella (cheryl.sabella) * |
Date: 2017-06-06 11:28 | |
This bug report has been closed, but the PR is still open. Please close the PR. Thank you. |
|||
| msg295263 - (view) | Author: (slytomcat) * | Date: 2017-06-06 14:23 | |
done 2017-06-06 14:28 GMT+03:00 Cheryl Sabella <[email protected]>: > > Cheryl Sabella added the comment: > > This bug report has been closed, but the PR is still open. Please close > the PR. Thank you. > > ---------- > nosy: +csabella > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <[email protected]> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue29569> > _______________________________________ > |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:58:43 | admin | set | github: 73755 |
| 2017-06-06 14:23:23 | slytomcat | set | messages: + msg295263 |
| 2017-06-06 11:28:01 | cheryl.sabella | set | nosy:
+ cheryl.sabella messages: + msg295251 |
| 2017-04-05 15:27:34 | rhettinger | set | status: open -> closed resolution: rejected stage: resolved |
| 2017-04-05 06:54:17 | pitrou | set | nosy:
+ tim.peters messages: + msg291163 |
| 2017-04-05 05:37:14 | rhettinger | set | assignee: pitrou messages: + msg291155 nosy: + pitrou |
| 2017-02-23 03:14:54 | rhettinger | set | nosy:
+ rhettinger messages: + msg288398 |
| 2017-02-20 11:32:53 | slytomcat | set | pull_requests: - pull_request81 |
| 2017-02-20 09:44:36 | slytomcat | set | pull_requests: + pull_request157 |
| 2017-02-15 15:01:15 | slytomcat | set | pull_requests: + pull_request81 |
| 2017-02-15 14:54:10 | slytomcat | create | |
