Message125605
| Author | loewis |
|---|---|
| Recipients | foom, gregory.p.smith, loewis, mwh, pitrou, rnk |
| Date | 2011-01-06.23:44:04 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.00019950507 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <4D2653C3.20303@v.loewis.de> |
| In-reply-to | <1294352961.35.0.189353455191.issue1054041@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I wonder whether there is a precedent of some system mapping SIGINT to an exception. We could probably learn something from them. > - should KeyboardInterrupt always exit with SIGINT, or only if it was > actually raised by a signal handler? IMO, if we give the illusion that the interpreter was actually killed, we should equate KeyboardInterrupt with SIGINT; any uncaught KeyboardInterrupt should consequently always lead to raising SIGINT. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-01-06 23:44:06 | loewis | set | recipients: + loewis, mwh, gregory.p.smith, foom, pitrou, rnk |
| 2011-01-06 23:44:04 | loewis | link | issue1054041 messages |
| 2011-01-06 23:44:04 | loewis | create | |