On Dec 18, 2015, at 10:36, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Szieberth Ádám <szieba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks for your reply Guido! >> >> > - In theory, instead of waiting for a Future that is cancelled by a >> > handler, you should be able to use asyncio.sleep() with a very large number >> > (e.g. a million seconds). >> >> I was thinking on this too but it seemed less explicit to me than awaiting a >> pure Future with a short comment. Moreover, even millions of seconds can >> pass. > > 11 years.
It's 11 days. Which is pretty reasonable server uptime. And probably just outside the longest test you're ever going to run. I don't trust myself to pick "a big number" when the numbers get this big. But I still sometimes sneak one past myself somehow. Hence my suggestion for a way to actually say "forever".
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
