On 11Mar2009 02:20, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: | Christian Heimes <lists <at> cheimes.de> writes: | > I agree with you, fsync() shouldn't be called by default. I didn't plan | > on adding fsync() calls all over our code. However I like to suggest a | > file.sync() method and a synced flag for files to make the job of | > application developers easier. | | We already have os.fsync() and os.fdatasync(). Should the sync() (and | datasync()?) method be added as an object-oriented convenience?
I can imagine plenty of occasions when there may not be an available file descriptor to hand to os.fsync() et al. Having sync() and datasync() methods in the object would obviate the need for the caller to know the object internals. -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ I must construct my own System, or be enslaved to another Man's. - William Blake _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
