[Python-ideas] Pythonic buffering in Py3 print() (original) (raw)

Cameron Simpson cs at zip.com.au
Thu Jan 12 02:40:17 CET 2012

On 11Jan2012 19:15, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote: | On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote: | >Better if we only specify behaviour for True (flush now) and | >None/default/missing (flush default) and make it slightly clear that | >other values do not have defined behaviour. || That was the intent of my suggested doc rewording -- file controls | flushing unless flush=True is given. What I wrote on the issue was a | first try and I suspect that there are other and perhaps better | concise wordings. Post one on the issue if you have one. (But | writing in 'doc style' is not always easy ;-).

Do I comment here, or in #11633 (which is closed) or in #13761? We seem to have multiple streams of discussion.

BTW, regarding #11633, I don't like your sentence:

Use sys.stdout.flush() to ensure immediate appearance on a screen

Shouldn't that be "file.flush()" ? I would not want to give a shallow reader the idea that flushing stdout magicly sorts their problems with a specific file. And I've seen that level of logical gap in various questions on python-list (and elsewhere, of course).

I'd also change "ensure immediate appearance on a screen" to "ensure immediate output, for example to ensure appearance on a screen". Again, it changes the wording from "to perform this specific special case call flush" to "calling flush does blah, for example to aid this specific case".

Cheers,

Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/

When in doubt, gas it. It may not solve the problem, but it ends the suspense. - Steve Moonitz (92 Ducati 900ss) <stevem at ew.timeinc.com>

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list