Author gvanrossum
Recipients carmiac, davidfraser, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, pitrou, tim.peters, tlesher
Date 2009-03-30.15:53:24
SpamBayes Score 0.00286252
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1238428406.63.0.520650478421.issue1674032@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Looking at this, I think this change is fine.  The _Event class itself
holds the condition that it's checking for, and the is_set() method
doesn't acquire the lock, so there's no reason to prefer

e.wait()
if e.is_set():
    GOT_IT()

over

if e.wait():
    GOT_IT()

IOW Tim's reasoning in #1175933 for rejecting a similar change to
_Condition.wait() doesn't apply here.  I think we can go ahead without
waiting for Tim to confirm this.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-03-30 15:53:27gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, tim.peters, georg.brandl, davidfraser, pitrou, tlesher, carmiac
2009-03-30 15:53:26gvanrossumsetmessageid: <1238428406.63.0.520650478421.issue1674032@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2009-03-30 15:53:25gvanrossumlinkissue1674032 messages
2009-03-30 15:53:25gvanrossumcreate