Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20071208/143ac540/attachment.htm below:
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/8/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Guido van Rossum</b> <<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Dec 8, 2007 9:55 AM, Johan Dahlin <<a href="mailto:johan@gnome.org">johan@gnome.org</a>> wrote:<br>> Guido van Rossum wrote:<br><br>> > Hm. How about making that an option? I don't think on the OLPC XO this
<br>> > is a valid use case (end users never have a console where they might<br>> > enter ^C).<br>> ><br>><br>> It could easily be made into a compilation option which would solve the<br>> problem specifically for OLPC, but it would still be problematic for other
<br>> platforms important to PyGTK (linux/gnome) where console based development<br>> is more common.<br><br>But do those other platforms care about the extra CPU cycles and power<br>used? I suspect not, at least not to the extent that OLPC cares.
</blockquote><div><br>The OLPC project should go ahead with a hackish or otherwise unacceptable to mainstream fix for their issue while the better solution is worked on. I suspect even changing the evil check for signal loop delay to several seconds would be enough of a hack for them to save power.
<br></div></div>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo
| Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4