Message157333
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, Jim.Jewett, asvetlov, gregory.p.smith, gvanrossum, ncoghlan, pitrou, r.david.murray, rhettinger, skrah, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年04月01日.23:01:12 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CADiSq7dyBM+r-swzecJDxLuca0DgZxvwF2tL4ULJ+3+nPQkeFA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1333313890.64.0.879232167517.issue14417@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
A thought prompted by Raymond's comment: did we ever try just protecting
the retry as a recursive call? If we can stop the stack blowing up, it
seems to me we'd get the best of both worlds (that is, crashes become
RuntimeError, but naive multi-threaded code is unaffected). |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年04月01日 23:01:13 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, gvanrossum, rhettinger, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, vstinner, Arfrever, r.david.murray, asvetlov, skrah, Jim.Jewett |
| 2012年04月01日 23:01:12 | ncoghlan | link | issue14417 messages |
| 2012年04月01日 23:01:12 | ncoghlan | create |
|