Message120942
| Author |
5houston |
| Recipients |
5houston, asksol, jnoller |
| Date |
2010年11月11日.11:13:19 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.5467304e-07 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1289474001.64.0.74840836922.issue8028@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
If you will choose the former way, I think it would be better to write in the "multiprocessing.Process" documentation that sys.exit is the function to use to break the process execution inside itself, but maybe it would be better to wrap sys.exit with a new "multiprocessing.Process" method:
multiprocessing.Process.exit([arg]) for example.
Maybe it would be better to modify the sys.exit documentation too.
From "Exit from Python" to "Exit from python process which it is called in".
Or, finally, you could modify "multiprocessing.Process.terminate" in this way (using pseudo-code):
self.terminate():
if caller is self: sys.exit()
else: -the current code- |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2010年11月11日 11:13:21 | 5houston | set | recipients:
+ 5houston, jnoller, asksol |
| 2010年11月11日 11:13:21 | 5houston | set | messageid: <1289474001.64.0.74840836922.issue8028@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010年11月11日 11:13:19 | 5houston | link | issue8028 messages |
| 2010年11月11日 11:13:19 | 5houston | create |
|