Steffen Daode Nurpmeso <sdao...@googlemail.com> added the comment: On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:20:14PM +0000, Éric Araujo wrote: > your patch is not uncontroversial.
The code is very ugly, but i think that somewhat reflects the code flow of the entire function. At least a bit. I've forced all mis-uses i could imagine and the patch you see was the only solution to avoid the ResourceWarning for all of them. Do you disagree in avoiding that warning, or have i missed an error?? (But maybe this entire function should be cleaned up a bit to get rid of these interlocked try: blocks, which would make it easier to write the newline and also close the stream.) > -1 on the second patch: there’s another issue for that Well, ok about that. However, msg128824 seems to indicate that you are willing to accept that termios.ISIG shall not be set. If you want to treat this as two commits then of course one of the patches (for #11236 and #11466) needs to be adjusted after the other has been patched in. So, what is your suggestion? Shall i write a patch for #11236 which assumes that getpass_fdclose.patch has been integrated yet? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11466> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
