Message139769
| Author |
lcampagn |
| Recipients |
lcampagn, neologix |
| Date |
2011年07月04日.13:56:21 |
| SpamBayes Score |
4.083348e-08 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<CACZXET_BrT4UTVG3EUc5b8EGhZM50HD0fML4hLRUticby9LAfA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1309785850.12.0.459572984447.issue12488@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
That's interesting, thanks for your response.
It is also a bit awkward..
Might I recommend adding a note to the documentation? It is not really
intuitive that each child should need to close the end of the pipe it isn't
using (especially since it is possible to create a child that has no
explicit access to that end of the pipe, even though it has inherited the
file descriptor).
2011年7月4日 Charles-François Natali <report@bugs.python.org>
>
> Charles-François Natali <neologix@free.fr> added the comment:
>
> That's because the other end of the pipe (p1) is open in the child process
> (FDs are inherited on fork()).
> Just add
> p1.close()
>
> at the beginning of fn() and you'll get EOF.
> Closing as invalid.
>
> ----------
> nosy: +neologix
> resolution: -> invalid
> stage: -> committed/rejected
> status: open -> closed
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12488>
> _______________________________________
> |
| Files |
| File name |
Uploaded |
|
unnamed
|
lcampagn,
2011年07月04日.13:56:21
|
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年07月04日 13:56:22 | lcampagn | set | recipients:
+ lcampagn, neologix |
| 2011年07月04日 13:56:21 | lcampagn | link | issue12488 messages |
| 2011年07月04日 13:56:21 | lcampagn | create |
|