➜

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 loewis
Recipients BreamoreBoy, ajaksu2, loewis, mdr0, nnorwitz, pitrou, sable, tim.peters, wheelrl
Date 2010-09-21.15:53:26
SpamBayes Score 3.6714093e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <4C98D4F5.30008@v.loewis.de>
In-reply-to <1285083799.46.0.0195220470789.issue678250@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content 
> Interestingly, the matter was discussed on another issue, #2643. I
> also agree that ideally flush() should become a no-op (only in 3.2,
> since it would break compatibility). But then we should also expose a
> separate sync() method with the current behaviour.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that flush should become
a noop entirely - only for ACCESS_COPY mappings.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-09-21 15:53:27loewissetrecipients: + loewis, tim.peters, nnorwitz, wheelrl, mdr0, pitrou, sable, ajaksu2, BreamoreBoy
2010-09-21 15:53:26loewislinkissue678250 messages
2010-09-21 15:53:26loewiscreate