[Python-Dev] Possible py3k io wierdness (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 13:13:36 CEST 2009
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Possible py3k io wierdness
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Possible py3k io wierdness
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Brian Quinlan wrote:
- you need the cooperation of your subclasses i.e. they must call super().flush() in .flush() to get correct close behavior (and this represents a backwards-incompatible semantic change)
Are you sure about that? Going by the current _pyio semantics that Antoine posted, it looks to me that it is already the case that subclasses need to invoke the parent flush() call correctly to avoid breaking the base class semantics (which really isn't an uncommon problem when it comes to writing correct subclasses).
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Possible py3k io wierdness
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Possible py3k io wierdness
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]