Message132065
| Author |
v+python |
| Recipients |
David.Sankel, amaury.forgeotdarc, brian.curtin, christian.heimes, christoph, davidsarah, ezio.melotti, hippietrail, lemburg, mark, pitrou, santoso.wijaya, ssbarnea, terry.reedy, tim.golden, tzot, v+python, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年03月25日.01:30:03 |
| SpamBayes Score |
0.013846917 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1301016604.45.0.504015020577.issue1602@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Would it suffice if the new scheme internally flushed after every buffer.write? It wouldn't be needed after write, because the correct application would already do one there?
Am I off-base in supposing that the performance of buffer.write is expected to include a flush (because it isn't expected to be buffered)? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年03月25日 01:30:04 | v+python | set | recipients:
+ v+python, lemburg, terry.reedy, tzot, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, tim.golden, mark, christoph, ezio.melotti, hippietrail, ssbarnea, brian.curtin, davidsarah, santoso.wijaya, David.Sankel |
| 2011年03月25日 01:30:04 | v+python | set | messageid: <1301016604.45.0.504015020577.issue1602@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011年03月25日 01:30:03 | v+python | link | issue1602 messages |
| 2011年03月25日 01:30:03 | v+python | create |
|