[Python-Dev] Possible py3k io wierdness (original) (raw)

Brian Quinlan brian at sweetapp.com
Mon Apr 6 20:13:28 CEST 2009

Nick Coghlan wrote:

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).

As it is now, if you didn't call super().flush() in your flush override, then a buffer won't be flushed at the time that you expected.

With the proposed change, if you don't call super().flush() in your flush override, then the buffer will never get flushed and you will lose data when you close the file.

I'm not saying that it is a big deal, but it is a difference.

Cheers, Brian

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list