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;
> }
>
> and the problem is that any setting of is_tripped that
> occurs in the midst of calling the handlers gets
> wiped out at the end.
>
> Changing this to
>
> while (is_tripped) {
> for each signal {
> if the signal has occurred, call its handler
> }
> is_tripped = 0;
> }
>
> doesn't solve that, because is_tripped still gets
> set to 0 before it's tested again.
Agreed.
> Thinking about it more, probably it doesn't. What's
> important is to clear it *before* testing whether any
> handlers need to be called, i.e.
>
> if (is_tripped) {
> is_tripped = 0;
> for each signal {
> if the signal has occurred, call its handler
> }
> }
>
That's exactly what my patch does as you can see here:
http://www.python.org/sf/1643738
Regards,
-- Ulisses
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
