Greg Ewing schrieb:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I got from the OP
> was that the current method does
Ok, I'm correcting you: This is not what the current
method does:
>
>if (is_tripped) {
> for each signal {
>if the signal has occurred, call its handler
> }
> i
On 1/27/07, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I got from the OP
> was that the current method does
>
>if (is_tripped) {
> for each signal {
>if the signal has occurred, call its handler
> }
> is_tripped = 0;
>}
>
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Greg Ewing schrieb:
>
>>>Please
>>>try to come up with a patch (e.g. by putting a while(is_tripped) loop
>>>around the for loop).
>>
>>That isn't going to fix it.
>
> Why not?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I got from the OP
was that the current method does
if (i
I apologise for going off-topic, but this is an explanation of why
I said that signal handling is not reliable. The only relevance to
Python is that Python should avoid relying on signals if possible,
and try to be a little defensive if not. Signals will USUALLY do
what is expected, but not alway
Greg Ewing schrieb:
>> Please
>> try to come up with a patch (e.g. by putting a while(is_tripped) loop
>> around the for loop).
>
> That isn't going to fix it.
Why not?
> What's needed is to somehow
> atomically test and clear is_tripped at the beginning.
How would that help? The case in quest
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> This one looks like an oversight in Python code, and so is a bug,
> but it is important to note that signals do NOT work reliably under
> any Unix or Microsoft system.
That's a rather pessimistic way of putting it. In my
experience, signals in Unix mostly do what they're
me
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Please
> try to come up with a patch (e.g. by putting a while(is_tripped) loop
> around the for loop).
That isn't going to fix it. What's needed is to somehow
atomically test and clear is_tripped at the beginning.
You can put a while loop around it as well if you want,
bu
On 1/24/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gustavo Carneiro schrieb:
>What about http://www.python.org/sf/1564547 ? It tries to solve a
> different problem, but I think it also fixes this one; at least as much
> as possible with the braindead unix signal programming interface.
On 1/24/07, Ulisses Furquim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree it's a bug, and I agree with your proposed analysis. Please
> > try to come up with a patch (e.g. by putting a while(is_tripped) loop
> > around the for loop). Also make sur
Gustavo Carneiro schrieb:
>What about http://www.python.org/sf/1564547 ? It tries to solve a
> different problem, but I think it also fixes this one; at least as much
> as possible with the braindead unix signal programming interface...
I'm sceptical. It is way too much code for me to review,
On 1/24/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ulisses Furquim schrieb:
> I've read some threads about signals in the archives and I was under
> the impression signals should work reliably on single-threaded
> applications. Am I right? I've thought about a way to fix this, but I
> don
On 1/24/07, Nick Maclaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obviously, Unix and Microsoft systems depend on signals, so you
> can't simply regard them as hopelessly broken, but you can't assume
> that they are RELIABLE. All code should be designed to cope with
> the case of signals getting lost, if at
On 1/24/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree it's a bug, and I agree with your proposed analysis. Please
> try to come up with a patch (e.g. by putting a while(is_tripped) loop
> around the for loop). Also make sure you include test case.
Ok. I was discussing this problem wit
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007, Ulisses Furquim wrote:
>
> I've read some threads about signals in the archives and I was under
> the impression signals should work reliably on single-threaded
> applications. Am I right? I've thought about a way to fix this, but I
> don't know what is the current plan for s
Ulisses Furquim schrieb:
> I've read some threads about signals in the archives and I was under
> the impression signals should work reliably on single-threaded
> applications. Am I right? I've thought about a way to fix this, but I
> don't know what is the current plan for signals support in pyth
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007, Ulisses Furquim wrote:
>
> I've read some threads about signals in the archives and I was under
> the impression signals should work reliably on single-threaded
> applications. Am I right? I've thought about a way to fix this, but I
> don't know what is the current plan for s
16 matches
Mail list logo
