[issue10444] A mechanism is needed to override waiting for Python threads to finish

[Michael Hughes]

Michael Hughes added the comment:

Given that this is from five years ago, and I've moved on, I honestly can't say I care too deeply about this.

My use case was for handling threads:
* created by inexperienced python programmers that don't know about daemons
* using third party python scripts that it would be easier not to edit

I feel that my proposed change handles that in a reasonable way, and doesn't complicate the interface for threads terribly. Most users can completely ignore the new method I proposed, and it won't affect them. For those going to look for it, it'll be there.

But again, I'm not even working in Python and no one else has chimed in on this in five years. Does it matter anymore?

- Michael

> On Nov 30, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Julien Palard <report at bugs.python.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Julien Palard added the comment:
> 
> If nobody has nothing to add on this issue, I think it just should be closed.
> 
> ----------
> 
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10444>
> _______________________________________

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue10444>
_______________________________________