On 02Jan2012 19:16, Adam Skutt <ask...@gmail.com> wrote: | On Jan 2, 8:44 pm, Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> wrote: | > On 02Jan2012 20:31, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierr...@gmail.com> wrote: | > | > I think that catching the exception is probably the most Pythonic way. | > | | > | It's the only correct way. | > | > Indeed, but be precise - chek that it _is_ error 3, or more portably, | > errno.ESRCH. POSIX probably mandates that that is a 3, but the symbol | > should track the local system if it differs. Example: | | No. It is possible (however unlikely) for EPERM to be legitimately | returned in this case. Anything other than EINVAL should be | interpreted as "The child process is dead".
Sure. I was more taking the line: catch and accept only the specific errors you understand. Of course he can catch EPERM also. But any other variant should at the least generate a warning to stderr or a log - it is _unexpected_. I take your point that reraising the exception may be overkill for failed signal delivery (if that was your point). But I am arguing for being very careful about what you silently pass as an ok thing. | Hence why you should | avoid sending the signal in the first place: the situations where you | don't run the risk of possibly killing an innocent bystander are | pretty narrow. While unlikely on modern UNiX and Linux, IMO it's best | to avoid the issue altogether whenever possible. Fair enough too. But sometimes you need to nail a rogue child. Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ Death is life's way of telling you you've been fired. - R. Geis -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
