Message307477
I like this change, and think we should go ahead with it, but just wanted to note that I suspect it may make the "Badly timed signals may lead to __exit__ being skipped even after __enter__ succeeded" problem slightly easier to hit: https://bugs.python.org/issue29988
That's not a new problem though, and this change should make it easier to apply the conventional solutions (i.e. only checking for signals when execution jumps backwards within a function, as well as in function pre-or-post-ambles) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-12-03 00:39:58 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, nascheme, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, trent, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, Demur Rumed |
2017-12-03 00:39:57 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1512261597.91.0.213398074469.issue17611@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-12-03 00:39:57 | ncoghlan | link | issue17611 messages |
2017-12-03 00:39:57 | ncoghlan | create | |
|