Skip to content

Conversation

@Vizonex
Copy link
Owner

@Vizonex Vizonex commented Jan 18, 2026

What do these changes do?

Important

This is currently is an idea that is still under concept and was the result of needing to solve an issue related to dependencies and optimizing signal execution.

  • My main reason for getting rid of _noop.noop has to do with pyinstaller and the amount of hurdles needed to be jumped just to get winloop to comply with pyinstaller hooks is just not wroth the time and resources they made it into a nightmare to try and add new things to it also making the process a little more annoying than it needs to be.

  • Because python needs something to evaluate my idea was invoking _PyEval_FrameDefault by calling upon eval to try and attempt to deliver the same results.

  • I would like to get a maintainer from uvloop to look at this or explain to be why this is good or bad before I continue to merge this since I wanted to make sure that if I do go for this implementation that the uvloop maintainers and contributors will follow my lead on this important upgrade.

I'll throw in an issue about this on uvloop's github repo if I do not hear back about this idea when I get home from work today.

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

This should revert some older changes and make ceval equal to what it was originally when CTRL+C is hit.

Is it a substantial burden for the maintainers to support this?

  • It's a lot better than me trying to add a new hook to pyinstaller.
  • we get rid of a module making things a little less stressful to maintain.

Related issue number

Fixes #58

Checklist

  • I think the code is well written
  • Unit tests for the changes exist
  • Documentation reflects the changes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Getting rid of _noop.noop() to make winloop run smoother and hacking in a special Eval Method instead.

2 participants