Okay, you're a cool-aid drinker. S'cool.

I'm not. I don't like the taste.

The only thing I'll respond to is:

I don't think any of your tests check the "n" method either.

True, for a reason: I cannot think of a good use for it. As such it may well go away if I don't find a use for it between now and releasing it. If I ever do.

The only use I make of Thread::Queue::pending(), relates to preventing the Q from attaining an unbounded size. My queue addresses that internally, so that use goes away.

Another possible use would be to prevent code from calling dq() when it would block. But as discussed elsewhere, that use is a bust because the information can be out-of-date by the time I get it.

If there was a use-case for a dq_nb() or similar, then it would have to be implemented internally -- with the test under locks. If I find myself wanting that facility then I'll add it (under some name) and probably drop n().