Guido van Rossum added the comment:
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.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue26923>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
