This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author ncoghlan
Recipients bbayles, erik.bray, jdemeyer, ncoghlan, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2018-06-27.14:05:00
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1530108301.04.0.56676864532.issue33939@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
If C level iterator implementations in the standard library natively handled Ctrl-C (to cope with naive third party C level iterator consumers), and so did C level iterator consumers in the standard library (to cope with with naive third party C level iterators), I agree this wouldn't be that useful.

However, if folks are going to actively oppose making it possible for users to interrupt tight loops over non-Python iterators that are "bigger or slower than convenient" on the grounds of it making the C code more complicated to solve a problem they personally consider to be purely theoretical (despite other core developers telling them otherwise), then special casing known-infinite iterators is better than nothing.
History
Date User Action Args
2018-06-27 14:05:01ncoghlansetrecipients: + ncoghlan, rhettinger, pitrou, erik.bray, serhiy.storchaka, jdemeyer, bbayles
2018-06-27 14:05:01ncoghlansetmessageid: <1530108301.04.0.56676864532.issue33939@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-06-27 14:05:01ncoghlanlinkissue33939 messages
2018-06-27 14:05:00ncoghlancreate