➜

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 akira
Recipients Andrew.Boettcher, ajaksu2, akira, astrand, cvrebert, ericpruitt, eryksun, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, janzert, josiahcarlson, martin.panter, ooooooooo, parameter, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, sbt, techtonik, v+python, vstinner, yselivanov
Date 2014-07-24.11:28:33
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <877g33m1wi.fsf@gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1406159493.72.0.265844627577.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> (STINNER Victor's message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:51:34 +0000")
Content 
STINNER Victor <report@bugs.python.org> writes:
>
>> I have implemented and would continue to lean towards continuing to
> hide BrokenPipeError on the additional API endpoints.
>
> FYI asyncio.Process.communicate() ignores BrokenPipeError and
> ConnectionResetError, whereas asyncio.Process.stdin.drain() (coroutine
> to wait until all bytes are written) raises a BrokenPipeError or
> ConnectionResetError if the child process exited. I think subprocess
> has the same design.

Do Popen.write_nonblocking() and Popen.read_nonblocking() methods
belong to the second category? Should they raise BrokenPipeError?
History
Date User Action Args
2014-07-24 11:28:33akirasetrecipients: + akira, gvanrossum, josiahcarlson, astrand, parameter, vstinner, techtonik, giampaolo.rodola, ajaksu2, ooooooooo, v+python, r.david.murray, cvrebert, ericpruitt, Andrew.Boettcher, rosslagerwall, sbt, martin.panter, janzert, yselivanov, eryksun
2014-07-24 11:28:33akiralinkissue1191964 messages
2014-07-24 11:28:33akiracreate