Skip to content

Conversation

@vineetbansal
Copy link
Collaborator

Other than the minor verbiage changes (one unrelated to week11 that I noticed earlier), the main suggestion here is that I think we're introducing threads with async a little too soon, before the "regular" async stuff has been introduced. So I changed the existing asyncpi.py to not use threads, and moved your existing example to asyncpi_thread.py. If acceptable, feel free to change the wording to suit your needs.

I had no idea about InterpreterPoolExecutor and didn't realize that if __name__ == "__main__" check is necessary for the spawn method, so this was very helpful!

Copy link
Collaborator

@henryiii henryiii left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great improvements!

@henryiii henryiii merged commit 9b754a4 into se-for-sci:main Jun 30, 2025
5 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants