Author bar.harel
Recipients asvetlov, bar.harel, njs, yselivanov
Date 2018-02-14.08:12:46
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAMsGuymdiZF-qzOuvq=r1TVkxYdDgSaD547OGAZNpomx+2e=ug@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1518586099.81.0.467229070634.issue32841@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
I don't think so. Having shield not cancel immediately but rather wait and
cancel will cause long timed shielded operations to stall the task
cancellation, usually for no good. This isn't the general case.
However, adding another function which does so might just be a good idea. I
think another parameter to shield to choose cancellation time will clutter
the function call.

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018, 7:28 AM Nathaniel Smith <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> added the comment:
>
> It does make me wonder if asyncio.shield *should* wait for the thing it's
> shielding though, so that it *would* work in this case? (Similar to
> bpo-32751.)
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32841>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2018-02-14 08:12:46bar.harelsetrecipients: + bar.harel, njs, asvetlov, yselivanov
2018-02-14 08:12:46bar.harellinkissue32841 messages
2018-02-14 08:12:46bar.harelcreate