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 gvanrossum
Recipients georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum
Date 2012-01-11.18:27:13
SpamBayes Score 1.0424874e-06
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1326306455.25.0.0505251792324.issue13761@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
In the python-ideas discussion people have argued that flush=False should or could be interpreted as "definitely do not flush" which is unimplementable (the buffer may be full, or the stream may be unbuffered, and there is no way to tell a write() call to skip the flushing if the stream's policy would be to flush). Sticklers have proposed to name the flag "force_flush" to avoid this ambiguity, or to pass None instead of False.

I think that's all being hypercorrect -- first of all, nobody is going to explicitly write flush=False since that is the default, and second of all, who could possibly care about not flushing on a per-call basis? The flag should have a short name and simple semantics. flush=True/False does this: if flush is true, an explicit flush() call is made, if it is false, flush() is not called. What the stream does is its business.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-01-11 18:27:35gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola
2012-01-11 18:27:35gvanrossumsetmessageid: <1326306455.25.0.0505251792324.issue13761@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-01-11 18:27:13gvanrossumlinkissue13761 messages
2012-01-11 18:27:13gvanrossumcreate