<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
From what I've read in this thread, Linux, Mac, and Windows all seem
to fully support the subprocess without issue. <br>
<br>
Should I open an issue on the bug tracker for deprecating "-n" ?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 06/24/2012 05:32 AM, Tal Einat wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALWZvp7JvDgU_hNor84FdG0AWL666o0F+b2ryu-K06VWFP9=KQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>
<div>On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:54 AM, serwy <span><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:roger.serwy@gmail.com">roger.serwy@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote>
IDLE developers,<br>
<br>
In the interest of simplifying IDLE's code, I suggest that
running IDLE *without* a subprocess be deprecated. Since
2009, IDLE could have multiple instances running while using
a subprocess. See <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bugs.python.org/issue1529142">http://bugs.python.org/
issue1529142</a><br>
<br>
Running without a subprocess has a flaw in that Ctrl+C from
the IDLE GUI can not be used to stop a program. This can be
irritating to Python beginners if an accidental infinite
loop arises and the user's only recourse is to restart IDLE,
losing any unsaved work in the editor windows.<br>
<br>
What are your thoughts?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
IIRC, the major reason for keeping around no-subprocess mode
was because IDLE always used the same port for communicating
with its subprocess. Therefore, running more than one
instance of IDLE at the same time would never work, and even
closing IDLE and running it again quickly would sometimes
fail. This is no longer an issue since IDLE now uses a
random port given by the OS (by opening the socket on TCP
port zero - it took me years to discover that trick!).<br>
<br>
Other reasons for keeping no-subprocess mode around:<br>
* debugging IDLE is significantly easier when everything is
in a single process<br>
* some firewall software would occasionally block the
connection to the subprocess, or perhaps just raise a
warning (but I guess this is no longer a real issue; the old
firewall warning message has been removed)<br>
<br>
In my opinion, if the IDLE developers are confident in their
ability to debug IDLE running with a sub-process, then there
is no significant reason not to remove the no-subprocess
mode. From what I remember about the code, this would allow
simplifying things significantly in many places.<br>
<br>
- Tal Einat<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>