Message156447
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, eric.araujo, loewis, nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou, rosslagerwall |
| Date |
2012年03月20日.19:05:54 |
| SpamBayes Score |
5.002536e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1332270077.3440.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<CAH_1eM33jOzVS26Wr-6pK5YXKHoOz11VgH2Yi=9eDcRbvMqdWA@mail.gmail.com> |
| Content |
> I agree with Martin: we really do handle the signal, and as such, the
> only way to convey the relevant information to the parent as to which
> signal caused the exit would be to re-raise it, which is really ugly
> and probably not a good idea.
Why would it be ugly? faulthandler does exactly that. |
|