(original) (raw)

Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have.

—
Sent from Mailbox

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200
Charles-François Natali wrote:
> 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou :
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Some pieces of code are still guarded by:
> > #ifdef HAVE\_FSTAT
> > ...
> > #endif
> >
> > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty
> > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply
> > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain
> > unused fallback paths.
>
> I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this:
> http://bugs.python.org/issue12082
>
> The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat().

Ah, right. Ok, judging by the answers I'm being consistent in my
opinions :-)

I still wonder why an embedded platform can't provide at least some
emulation of fstat(), even by returning fake values. Not providing
such a basic function must break a lot of existing third-party software.

Regards

Antoine.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org