GeezerVison

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

I pushed a rebase and got the Appveyor error. I'm working on the other concerns about the after_info functionality, so I'll push a fix once those are worked out. Although, this issue on Appveyor does answer the previous question about the after_info() event list containing other events than the ones added in this test. It seems that the other new after* tests are leaving something behind.

Cheryl, can you explain the closing? I still think adding after_info would be good.

The only reported error, only on Travis, on line 191 is an extra item, 'after#8' (the 'timer' of line 180, I presume), in the tuple returned from .after_info. (The Travis job page somehow disables copying with current Firefox.) On this system, with the tcl/tk used, the preceding root.update() did not remove the 'timer' callback from the list.

I restarted the failing job to see if the failure is repeatable on Travis.

Answer: yes.

FWIW, I also think adding after_info() would be good.

Sorry about closing this prematurely. I had thought there hadn't been much interest in adding the functionality when I originally proposed it, so I was just doing some housekeeping. Good to know there is interest. Having said that, the tests pass locally, so it may be tricky to get them to pass. I have a root.update() to clear the timer event from a previous test, so it seems to work locally but not on Travis. I'll look into it more.

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

I am presuming that my old comments are obsolete.