Concurrency models (was: Timer)

[Alex Martelli]

Anthony Briggs wrote:
   ...
> No, I wrote something that I consider true. I'd consider that after
> command to be on a par with Fortran's(?) COME FROM statement in terms

Intercal.  Lawrence Clark's 1973 article about "comefrom" in Fortran
was satire (just as all of Intercal is).

> of being able to create subtle bugs.

Note that, in Python, you have that 'after' available any time
you're running a Tkinter GUI: any Tkinter widget has an 'after'
method that takes a delay (in milliseconds), a callable object,
and optionally some arguments, and schedules the callable to
be called with those arguments after that delay.

It works a charm, btw.


>>my money, the event-oriented model behind the [after]
>>above is at least as robust as any other.
> 
> Yes, that's what I said - only with fewer words :)

I thought you were arguing AGAINST the 'after' functionality,
and therefore against event-driven programming...?!

Surely, if I do have a program that's architected around
responding to asynchronous events (as GUIs invariably are,
as network programming can be with asyncore or Twisted),
the ability to explicitly schedule an event (thus a callback)
for some time in the future is no problem - just handy!


Alex