Message223827
| Author |
akira |
| Recipients |
Andrew.Boettcher, ajaksu2, akira, astrand, cvrebert, ericpruitt, eryksun, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, janzert, josiahcarlson, martin.panter, ooooooooo, parameter, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, sbt, techtonik, v+python, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date |
2014年07月24日.11:28:33 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<877g33m1wi.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1406159493.72.0.265844627577.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> (STINNER Victor's message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:51:34 +0000") |
| Content |
STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> writes:
>
>> I have implemented and would continue to lean towards continuing to
> hide BrokenPipeError on the additional API endpoints.
>
> FYI asyncio.Process.communicate() ignores BrokenPipeError and
> ConnectionResetError, whereas asyncio.Process.stdin.drain() (coroutine
> to wait until all bytes are written) raises a BrokenPipeError or
> ConnectionResetError if the child process exited. I think subprocess
> has the same design.
Do Popen.write_nonblocking() and Popen.read_nonblocking() methods
belong to the second category? Should they raise BrokenPipeError? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2014年07月24日 11:28:33 | akira | set | recipients:
+ akira, gvanrossum, josiahcarlson, astrand, parameter, vstinner, techtonik, giampaolo.rodola, ajaksu2, ooooooooo, v+python, r.david.murray, cvrebert, ericpruitt, Andrew.Boettcher, rosslagerwall, sbt, martin.panter, janzert, yselivanov, eryksun |
| 2014年07月24日 11:28:33 | akira | link | issue1191964 messages |
| 2014年07月24日 11:28:33 | akira | create |
|