On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:47:14 -0700 (PDT) "Guido van Rossum" <gvanros...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing > Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have.
I meant the platform, not Python. Regards Antoine. > — > Sent from Mailbox > > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> > wrote: > > > On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200 > > Charles-François Natali <cf.nat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>: > >> > > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > Some pieces of code are still guarded by: > >> > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT > >> > ... > >> > #endif > >> > > >> > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty > >> > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply > >> > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain > >> > unused fallback paths. > >> > >> I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this: > >> http://bugs.python.org/issue12082 > >> > >> The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat(). > > Ah, right. Ok, judging by the answers I'm being consistent in my > > opinions :-) > > I still wonder why an embedded platform can't provide at least some > > emulation of fstat(), even by returning fake values. Not providing > > such a basic function must break a lot of existing third-party software. > > Regards > > Antoine. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/guido%40python.org _______________________________________________ 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
