Author neologix
Recipients hynek, jcea, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, rosslagerwall, tarek
Date 2012-02-01.08:36:07
SpamBayes Score 3.37992e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <CAH_1eM205x6LAvYBY4A5tVPKA15_E-_1E6UCeUDjKAGo=gdUZw@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1328046829.20847.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content
> I think the O(depth) version is fine. The O(1) version is quite more
> complicated, difficult to follow, and it seems less robust (it doesn't
> use try/finally and therefore might leak fds if the generator isn't
> exhausted before being destroyed).

I agree.

> On modern systems you have at least 1024 fds, so the restriction
> shouldn't be a problem.

Actually, I think you're much more likely to run above the max
recursion limit than RLIMIT_NOFILE (OTOH, you don't know how many FDs
are already open at the time of the call).
History
Date User Action Args
2012-02-01 08:36:09neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, jcea, ncoghlan, pitrou, tarek, rosslagerwall, hynek
2012-02-01 08:36:08neologixlinkissue13734 messages
2012-02-01 08:36:07neologixcreate