This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | loewis |
|---|---|
| Recipients | christian.heimes, gvanrossum, loewis |
| Date | 2007年10月24日.05:56:17 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.075960495 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1193205379.51.0.779220701575.issue1318@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Removing them because there is a replacement already is a better reason than removing them because they give (bogus) warnings, so I'm -0 now. As you say, tempfile is not any better from a security point of view in the cases where tmpnam or tempnam would be used (e.g. if you want a child process create a file whose name you specify). Whether the tempfile.py implementation is actually better than the one in the C library, I cannot tell (hence the -0: I don't know whether tempfile.py or the C library wrapper should be removed). One issue I just noticed is that tempfile.mkstemp promise of not inheriting the file descriptor is bogus in the presence of threads and race conditions. If the rationale for the patch is to eliminate duplication, then os.tmpfile should be removed as well. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2007年10月24日 05:56:19 | loewis | set | spambayes_score: 0.0759605 -> 0.075960495 recipients: + loewis, gvanrossum, christian.heimes |
| 2007年10月24日 05:56:19 | loewis | set | spambayes_score: 0.0759605 -> 0.0759605 messageid: <1193205379.51.0.779220701575.issue1318@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2007年10月24日 05:56:19 | loewis | link | issue1318 messages |
| 2007年10月24日 05:56:17 | loewis | create | |