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 sdaoden
Recipients eric.araujo, gregory.p.smith, sdaoden
Date 2011-03-11.21:47:25
SpamBayes Score 6.665757e-11
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <20110311214717.GA58470@sherwood.local>
In-reply-to <1299878414.79.0.598717454425.issue11466@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:20:14PM +0000, Éric Araujo wrote:
> your patch is not uncontroversial.

The code is very ugly, but i think that somewhat reflects 
the code flow of the entire function. 
At least a bit. 
I've forced all mis-uses i could imagine and the patch you see was 
the only solution to avoid the ResourceWarning for all of them. 
Do you disagree in avoiding that warning, or have i missed an 
error??

(But maybe this entire function should be cleaned up a bit to get 
rid of these interlocked try: blocks, which would make it easier 
to write the newline and also close the stream.)

> -1 on the second patch: there’s another issue for that

Well, ok about that.
However, msg128824 seems to indicate that you are willing to 
accept that termios.ISIG shall not be set. 
If you want to treat this as two commits then of course one of the 
patches (for #11236 and #11466) needs to be adjusted after the 
other has been patched in.

So, what is your suggestion? 
Shall i write a patch for #11236 which assumes that 
getpass_fdclose.patch has been integrated yet?
History
Date User Action Args
2011-03-11 21:47:26sdaodensetrecipients: + sdaoden, gregory.p.smith, eric.araujo
2011-03-11 21:47:25sdaodenlinkissue11466 messages
2011-03-11 21:47:25sdaodencreate