STINNER Victor added the comment: > So, to sum up: > - you write a fragile and unelegant patch without a good reason > - you commit it without review > - you're asked several times to provide an example of the problems your patch > is supposed to solve, but don't give any > - you don't take into account the fact that all proven and successful event > loops work just fine without a similar patch > - you insist, and won't neither back your claims by examples, nor revert your > patch
My goal is to ensure that each call to asyncio.BaseEventLoop._run_once() executes at least an handle. It is now described as a unit test in Lib/test/test_asyncio/test_events.py: test_timeout_rounding(). There is one exception: I don't care if the selector was interrupted by a signal. (As I wrote, it's not interesting to loop on the selector, it's fine to re-execute the whole _run_once() method.) If I understood correctly your opinion, you don't want to reach this exact goal, and you would prefer to keep the code simpler. So you don't care if sometimes _run_once() exit without executing any task. Did I understand correctly your opinion? But I don't understand if you would prefer to revert all my changes, or keep the rounding away from zero in selectors? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20311> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
