Message117073
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
BreamoreBoy, ajaksu2, loewis, mdr0, nnorwitz, pitrou, sable, tim.peters, wheelrl |
| Date |
2010年09月21日.15:43:18 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.0003213262 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1285083799.46.0.0195220470789.issue678250@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Interestingly, the matter was discussed on another issue, #2643. I also agree that ideally flush() should become a no-op (only in 3.2, since it would break compatibility). But then we should also expose a separate sync() method with the current behaviour. |
|