Message268743
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| Recipients | JohannesEbke, MartinAltmayer, gvanrossum, tatellos, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date | 2016-06-17.21:40:05 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CAP7+vJL5U-i3i-d=k-+1GuNPjYp+ss+OLbShE4E3AzEp_yiWPg@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1465978869.72.0.730792032977.issue26923@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Thanks! I had eventually pieced together the same explanation. So yes, I
think your fix is right, though I would write it like this:
ret = False
for child in self._children:
ret |= child.cancel()
return ret # True if at least one child.cancel() call returned True
It would also be nice if there was a test for this behavior.
I keep worrying a bit -- a similar bug could exist in other pieces of the
code, or in other libraries. But I guess we can't do much about that. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-06-17 21:40:06 | gvanrossum | set | recipients: + gvanrossum, vstinner, MartinAltmayer, yselivanov, JohannesEbke, tatellos |
| 2016-06-17 21:40:05 | gvanrossum | link | issue26923 messages |
| 2016-06-17 21:40:05 | gvanrossum | create | |