[issue12897] Support for iterators in multiprocessing map

Richard Oudkerk added the comment: I'll close then. -- status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing lis

[issue12897] Support for iterators in multiprocessing map

andrew cooke added the comment: hi - i'm the original author (may be using a different account). as far as i remember, i raised this because it seemed relevant given the link i gave. if you've looked at the issue and think your approach would work, or that this should be closed, or whatever

[issue12897] Support for iterators in multiprocessing map

Richard Oudkerk added the comment: Unless you have a reason why imap() does not solve the problem I will eventually close the issue as rejected. -- resolution: -> rejected stage: -> committed/rejected status: open -> pending ___ Python tracker

[issue12897] Support for iterators in multiprocessing map

Richard Oudkerk added the comment: If you want lazy operation then you should use imap(f, it[, chunksize]) rather than using map_async(f, it). This will return an iterator rather than a list. Also, the iterator's next() method has a timeout argument. (chunksize is the number of items which

[issue12897] Support for iterators in multiprocessing map

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Since it's a feature request, I would suggest to look whether it can apply to concurrent.futures instead. -- nosy: +pitrou versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.4 ___ Python tracker __

[issue12897] Support for iterators in multiprocessing map

New submission from andrew cooke : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7306522/combining-itertools-and-multiprocessing/7307078 suggests (and the idea itself seems reasonable) that it would sometimes be useful for multiprocessing to operate correctly (ie lazily) with lazy input (iterables). for