Message117075
| Author |
loewis |
| Recipients |
BreamoreBoy, ajaksu2, loewis, mdr0, nnorwitz, pitrou, sable, tim.peters, wheelrl |
| Date |
2010年09月21日.15:53:26 |
| SpamBayes Score |
3.6714093e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<4C98D4F5.30008@v.loewis.de> |
| In-reply-to |
<1285083799.46.0.0195220470789.issue678250@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 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.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that flush should become
a noop entirely - only for ACCESS_COPY mappings. |
|