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

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Thu Jan 12 04:03:49 CET 2012

On 1/11/2012 8:40 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:

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)

After much discussion that included the possibility of a behavior change, that issue became about changing the print doc, especially for 3.2.

or in #13761?

After Guido's approval of leaving the default behavior as is but adding a parameter to change it, that was opened for the behavior change for 3.3. That change will require further doc change for 3.3.

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()" ?

That was my original idea but I changed it after internal debate. But I was at most 60-40 for what I did.

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".

If one of the doc people agree with you enough to refine the effectively temporary change for 3.2, fine, but I do not think it worth the effort. I suggest you focus on the doc further change for 3.3 after the behavior change. That will potentially be in the docs for several future versions. For that, post a post-change suggestion to #13761.

-- Terry Jan Reedy

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list