Message156447
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, eric.araujo, loewis, nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou, rosslagerwall |
| Date | 2012-03-20.19:05:54 |
| 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. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-03-20 19:05:55 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, loewis, nadeem.vawda, eric.araujo, Arfrever, neologix, rosslagerwall |
| 2012-03-20 19:05:54 | pitrou | link | issue14229 messages |
| 2012-03-20 19:05:54 | pitrou | create | |