Author pitrou
Recipients akuchling, djarb, facundobatista, forest, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, intgr, j1m, jafo, josiahcarlson, kevinwatters, mark.dickinson, markb, mcdonc, pitrou, r.david.murray, stutzbach, tseaver
Date 2011-12-14.14:33:27
SpamBayes Score 0.0153791
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1323873190.3334.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <1323872678.16.0.0110370948978.issue1641@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
> while 1:
>     asyncore.loop(timeout=1.0, count=1)  # count=1 makes loop() return after 1 loop
>     scheduler.run(blocking=False)       

Isn't that both ugly and imprecise?
The right way to do it is to set the timeout of the select() call
according to the deadline of the next scheduled call in the scheduler.
But you probably need to modify asyncore for that.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-12-14 14:33:28pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, akuchling, facundobatista, jafo, josiahcarlson, tseaver, mark.dickinson, forest, giampaolo.rodola, kevinwatters, djarb, stutzbach, markb, r.david.murray, intgr, mcdonc, j1m
2011-12-14 14:33:27pitroulinkissue1641 messages
2011-12-14 14:33:27pitroucreate