RetroSearch Browse

Sat Dec 8 21:00:48 CET 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-December/075630.html

On 12/8/07, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 9:55 AM, Johan Dahlin <johan at gnome.org> wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > > Hm. How about making that an option? I don't think on the OLPC XO this
> > > is a valid use case (end users never have a console where they might
> > > enter ^C).
> > >
> >
> > It could easily be made into a compilation option which would solve the
> > problem specifically for OLPC, but it would still be problematic for
> other
> > platforms important to PyGTK (linux/gnome) where console based
> development
> > is more common.
>
> But do those other platforms care about the extra CPU cycles and power
> used? I suspect not, at least not to the extent that OLPC cares.


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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20071208/143ac540/attachment.htm

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-December/075630.html below:

[Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).