Author vstinner
Recipients eric.snow, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, vstinner
Date 2014-02-03.00:19:06
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1391386746.4.0.603707445241.issue20311@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> So, to sum up:
> - you write a fragile and unelegant patch without a good reason
> - you commit it without review
> - you're asked several times to provide an example of the problems your patch is supposed to solve, but don't give any
> - you don't take into account the fact that all proven and successful event loops work just fine without a similar patch
> - you insist, and won't neither back your claims by examples, nor revert your patch

My goal is to ensure that each call to asyncio.BaseEventLoop._run_once() executes at least an handle. It is now described as a unit test in Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_events.py: test_timeout_rounding(). There is one exception: I don't care if the selector was interrupted by a signal. (As I wrote, it's not interesting to loop on the selector, it's fine to re-execute the whole _run_once() method.)

If I understood correctly your opinion, you don't want to reach this exact goal, and you would prefer to keep the code simpler. So you don't care if sometimes _run_once() exit without executing any task. Did I understand correctly your opinion?

But I don't understand if you would prefer to revert all my changes, or keep the rounding away from zero in selectors?
History
Date User Action Args
2014-02-03 00:19:06vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, gvanrossum, georg.brandl, pitrou, neologix, python-dev, eric.snow
2014-02-03 00:19:06vstinnersetmessageid: <1391386746.4.0.603707445241.issue20311@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-02-03 00:19:06vstinnerlinkissue20311 messages
2014-02-03 00:19:06vstinnercreate