On 2/27/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/27/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Therefore, normal code can ignore the possibility, or (to be really > > robust against someone else messing with the input stream) add an "if > > result is None: continue" clause to its loops. > No, since that would mean busy-waiting while the I/O isn't ready, Then should I assume that: (1) Read with a timeout is in the "better know your concrete object" category. (2) Dealing with possibly unready objects in a library/framework (yield the timeslot?) should generally be framework specific. > FWIW we just discovered that the buffered writers need a __del__ > method that calls flush()... All they really need is a __close__ method -- you don't want it to cause gc cycles, and it is OK if the flush happens more than once. (I'll stop for now, as the __del__ semantics are a different long thread.) -jJ _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
