Python sleep without interfering with script?

14,262

Solution 1

Interpreting your description literally, you need to put the print statement before the call to func2().

However, I'm guessing what you really want is for func2() to a background task that allows func1() to return immediately and not wait for func2() to complete it's execution. In order to do this, you need to create a thread to run func2().

import time
import threading

def func1():
    t = threading.Thread(target=func2)
    t.start()
    print("Do stuff here")
def func2():
    time.sleep(10)
    print("Do more stuff here")

func1()
print("func1 has returned")

Solution 2

You could use threading.Timer:

from __future__ import print_function
from threading import Timer

def func1():
    func2()
    print("Do stuff here")
def func2():
    Timer(10, print, ["Do more stuff here"]).start()

func1()

But as @unholysampler already pointed out it might be better to just write:

import time

def func1():
    print("Do stuff here")
    func2()

def func2():
    time.sleep(10)
    print("Do more stuff here")

func1()

Solution 3

If you're running your script on command line, try using the -u parameter. It runs the script in unbuffered mode and did the trick for me.

For example:

python -u my_script.py

Share:
14,262
AustinM
Author by

AustinM

Updated on July 29, 2022

Comments

  • AustinM
    AustinM almost 2 years

    Hey I need to know how to sleep in Python without interfering with the current script. I've tried using time.sleep() but it makes the entire script sleep.

    Like for example

    
    import time
    def func1():
        func2()
        print("Do stuff here")
    def func2():
        time.sleep(10)
        print("Do more stuff here")

    func1()

    I want it to immediately print Do stuff here, then wait 10 seconds and print Do more stuff here.

  • Admin
    Admin about 13 years
    +1 Or another process. Or any other kind of concurrency (coroutines with a hand-written scheduler come to mind, although that's hardly practical).
  • unholysampler
    unholysampler about 13 years
    @delnan: Yes. multiprocessing would be another alternative to provide the same functionality in a different way. If we wanted another impractical solution, I'm sure there is something that involves pigeons that would work.