On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 20:16 +0200, Dirk Meyer wrote: > @@ -198,7 +196,7 @@ > # fails. But after that everything is back to normal. > # XXX: (tack) this sounds like an interpreter bug, does it > still do this? > time.sleep(0.001) > - except: > + except Exception: > pass
Let's look at the whole comment above that: # This looks stupid, I know that. The problem is that if we have # a KeyboardInterrupt, that flag is still valid somewhere inside # python. The next system call will fail because of that. Since we # don't want a join of threads or similar fail, we use a very short # sleep here. In most cases we won't sleep at all because this sleep # fails. But after that everything is back to normal. So presumably there is some strangeness (bug?) that causes the next system call to reraise KeyboardInterrupt? In that case the original code was correct. Am I misunderstanding the comment? > +++ trunk/base/src/popen.py Wed Apr 22 14:16:11 2009 [...] > @@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ > except (KeyboardInterrupt, SystemExit), e: > os.kill(pid, signal) > sys.exit(0) > - except: > + except Exception: > pass This one has no effect because we're already catching KeyboardInterrupt and SystemExit. But it has even less effect because popen.py is deprecated :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Freevo-devel mailing list Freevo-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freevo-devel
