Message152425
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
hynek, jcea, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, rosslagerwall, tarek |
| Date |
2012年02月01日.08:36:07 |
| SpamBayes Score |
3.3799246e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<CAH_1eM205x6LAvYBY4A5tVPKA15_E-_1E6UCeUDjKAGo=gdUZw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1328046829.20847.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| Content |
> I think the O(depth) version is fine. The O(1) version is quite more
> complicated, difficult to follow, and it seems less robust (it doesn't
> use try/finally and therefore might leak fds if the generator isn't
> exhausted before being destroyed).
I agree.
> On modern systems you have at least 1024 fds, so the restriction
> shouldn't be a problem.
Actually, I think you're much more likely to run above the max
recursion limit than RLIMIT_NOFILE (OTOH, you don't know how many FDs
are already open at the time of the call). |
|