➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author vstinner
Recipients Andrew.Boettcher, ajaksu2, akira, astrand, cvrebert, ericpruitt, eryksun, giampaolo.rodola, janzert, josiahcarlson, ooooooooo, parameter, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, sbt, techtonik, v+python, vstinner
Date 2014-04-16.07:28:27
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1397633307.92.0.404191877838.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
I started to review the patch 5:
http://bugs.python.org/review/1191964/#ps11598

When I read unit tests, I realized that I don't like "write_nonblocking" name. It's too generic. A process has many files (more than just stdin, stdout, stderr: see pass_fds parameter of Popen). I would like an explicit "write_stdin_nonblocking" and "read_stdout_nonblocking".
History
Date User Action Args
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, josiahcarlson, astrand, parameter, techtonik, giampaolo.rodola, ajaksu2, ooooooooo, v+python, r.david.murray, cvrebert, ericpruitt, akira, Andrew.Boettcher, rosslagerwall, sbt, janzert, eryksun
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnersetmessageid: <1397633307.92.0.404191877838.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnerlinkissue1191964 messages
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnercreate