➜

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 v+python
Recipients David.Sankel, amaury.forgeotdarc, brian.curtin, christian.heimes, christoph, davidsarah, ezio.melotti, hippietrail, lemburg, mark, pitrou, santoso.wijaya, ssbarnea, terry.reedy, tim.golden, tzot, v+python, vstinner
Date 2011-03-25.01:30:03
SpamBayes Score 0.013846917
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1301016604.45.0.504015020577.issue1602@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
Would it suffice if the new scheme internally flushed after every buffer.write?  It wouldn't be needed after write, because the correct application would already do one there?

Am I off-base in supposing that the performance of buffer.write is expected to include a flush (because it isn't expected to be buffered)?
History
Date User Action Args
2011-03-25 01:30:04v+pythonsetrecipients: + v+python, lemburg, terry.reedy, tzot, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, tim.golden, mark, christoph, ezio.melotti, hippietrail, ssbarnea, brian.curtin, davidsarah, santoso.wijaya, David.Sankel
2011-03-25 01:30:04v+pythonsetmessageid: <1301016604.45.0.504015020577.issue1602@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-03-25 01:30:03v+pythonlinkissue1602 messages
2011-03-25 01:30:03v+pythoncreate