Hi,

(2012/04/17 0:24), Aaron Patterson wrote:
>>> So calling pop() means we're doing a not not blocking call. :(
>> 
>> How about to add try_pop?
> 
> try_pop seems fine, but it still seems strange to combine blocking 
> and non-blocking queues (but maybe *I* am the one who is strange).
> 
> In the case of BlockingQueue#pop in the patch I submitted, it 
> allows a timeout.  I don't think it's a feature that should be 
> abandoned.

I understand that ::Queue#pop should receive timeout extra parameter.

However, I'm not sure we need to separate (Blocking|Unblocking)Queue yet.

>> How
>>> 
>> about to implement Queue#to_a method that generate array which 
>> contains queues containing objects?
> 
> That seems fine!  Then we can eliminate Enumerable mixed in. :-)

Yes.  And it is clear semantics.

::Queue#each can be implemented on at least two semantics:
  1) block the end of queue. (like IO)
  2) return when reach end of queue. (like Array)

Against IO, Queue#each with semantics (1) can't stop.  It is similar
to the cycle object (generated by Enumerator#cycle).

-- 
// SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net