Jason Tackaberry wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 20:16 +0200, Dirk Meyer wrote: >> @@ -198,7 +196,7 @@ >> # fails. But after that everything is back to normal. >> # XXX: (tack) this sounds like an interpreter bug, does it >> still do this? >> time.sleep(0.001) >> - except: >> + except Exception: >> pass > > Let's look at the whole comment above that: > > # This looks stupid, I know that. The problem is that if we have > # a KeyboardInterrupt, that flag is still valid somewhere inside > # python. The next system call will fail because of that. Since we > # don't want a join of threads or similar fail, we use a very short > # sleep here. In most cases we won't sleep at all because this sleep > # fails. But after that everything is back to normal. > > So presumably there is some strangeness (bug?) that causes the next > system call to reraise KeyboardInterrupt? In that case the original > code was correct. > > Am I misunderstanding the comment?
Stupid me. Yes, you are right. > This one has no effect because we're already catching KeyboardInterrupt > and SystemExit. I know. I only do not like 'except:'. > But it has even less effect because popen.py is deprecated :) Yes. I did not think much when doing the changes :) Dischi -- "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." [Dilbert] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Freevo-devel mailing list Freevo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel
