removeall() in list

[castironpi at gmail.com]

On Jan 12, 3:51 am, Fredrik Lundh <fred... at pythonware.com> wrote:
> castiro... at gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm writing an NxN observer pattern, mostly for my own personal
> > exploration.  Two threads -might- be calling 'Disconnect' at the same
> > time, and I can't even guarantee that the function runs properly.
>
> >    for emelem in [ e for e in emlist if e.func is func ]:
> >            try:
> >                    emlist.remove( emelem )
> >            except ValueError:
> >                    pass
>
> so use a lock.  it's a whopping two lines of code:
>
> creation:
>
>      lock = threading.Lock()
>
> usage:
>
>      with lock:
>          for emelem in ...
>              ...
>
> more here:
>
>      http://effbot.org/zone/thread-synchronization.htm
>
> and btw, looping over a list to figure out what you want to remove from
> that list is a bit pointless.  better just create a new list:
>
>      with lock:
>          # get rid of all func instances
>          emlist = [e for e in emlist if e.func is not func]
>
> an alternative approach would be to replace emlist with a dictionary,
> keyed on func objects.  that'll let you remove all items associated with
> a given function with a single atomic operation:
>
>      del emdict[func]
>
> </F>

-> so use a lock.  it's a whopping two lines of code:
Yes.
1) I'm wondering what the specifics are on [Rubin]:

>>2. Associate a lock with the list.  Anything wanting to access the
list should acquire the lock, do its stuff, then release the lock.
This gets confusing after a while.<<

I considered these suggestions early on.  They apply often but I ruled
them out for reasons:

2) List is referenced by others; concurrent modifications may be going
on; can not replace it.  Can I make asynchronous modifications and
merge the changes, SCM-style?
3) Dictionary returns non-static order; order is important.  Create a
int-func tuple and sort dictionary results?  Perhaps.  That's sounding
pretty good.