Message85955
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| Recipients |
jvdias, r.david.murray, r.david.murray |
| Date |
2009年04月14日.01:00:56 |
| SpamBayes Score |
9.436896e-16 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<Pine.LNX.4.64.0904131956580.26362@kimball.webabinitio.net> |
| In-reply-to |
<200904101332.21982.jason.vas.dias@gmail.com> |
| Content |
On 2009年4月11日 at 09:29, jvdias wrote:
> jvdias <jason.vas.dias@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> Thanks for responding !
You are welcome. If you want something to happen, though,
you'll have to get support from the community and submit
a patch.
> Can't Python provide a better print() implementation or a fflush()
> implementation that will enable print()'s buffers to be flushed ?
> Perhaps something like PERL's IO::Handle::autoflush() ?
Is there some way in which sys.stdout.flush() is not equivalent to "an
fflush implementation that will enable print()'s buffers to be flushed"?
> Maybe I should raise another "fflush() support required" bug ?
If it's a real issue, yes. But I don't think it is.
--David |
|