On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:36:50 +0100 "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > Am 18.12.2010 19:55, schrieb Alexander Belopolsky: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote: > > .. > >> In any case, this is coming pretty late; beta 2 is scheduled for this > >> weekend, and even if this is something that only kicks in when all hope > >> is lost anyway, it is a new feature. I should like to hear approval > >> from a few more devs before I will let this go into 3.2. > >> > > > > I am -1 on the feature as written. I would be -0 if it did not > > install signal handlers by default and even better was implemented in > > a separate module, not in core. > > This is also what I think. Installing a signal handler is a fairly > drastic action, and I don't think the code has been sufficiently > reviewed yet. How much more review should it receive? > I also share Alexander's concern that Python just shouldn't mess with > signal handlers at all, ideally. So some trade-off has to be found to > address that concern (e.g. by making the signal handlers only active > for the executable interpreter, but not in the embedded case). Well, Python already does (and also apparently messes with other things such as FPU state), so that's a separate issue altogether. Regards Antoine.
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