On 12/8/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2007 9:55 AM, Johan Dahlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > > Hm. How about making that an option? I don't think on the OLPC XO this > > > is a valid use case (end users never have a console where they might > > > enter ^C). > > > > > > > It could easily be made into a compilation option which would solve the > > problem specifically for OLPC, but it would still be problematic for > other > > platforms important to PyGTK (linux/gnome) where console based > development > > is more common. > > But do those other platforms care about the extra CPU cycles and power > used? I suspect not, at least not to the extent that OLPC cares.
The OLPC project should go ahead with a hackish or otherwise unacceptable to mainstream fix for their issue while the better solution is worked on. I suspect even changing the evil check for signal loop delay to several seconds would be enough of a hack for them to save power.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
