Nathaniel Smith added the comment: In terms of general design cleanliness, I think it would be better to make `interrupt_main` work reliably than to have IDLE add workarounds for its unreliability.
AFAICT the ideal, minimal redundancy solution would be: - interrupt_main just calls raise(SIGINT) - bpo-21895 is fixed by adding a few lines to Python's C-level signal handler on Unix-likes to check if it's running in the main thread, and if not then use pthread_kill to redirect the signal to the main thread. If trying to fix bpo-28195 is too controversial, then a minimal change would be: - in interrupt_main, if we're on Windows, call raise(SIGINT); otherwise, call pthread_kill(main_thread, SIGINT) And in either case we'd also have to document that interrupt_main is now equivalent to the user having hit control-C. But AFAICT that's what all its users really want anyway. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue29926> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
