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 David.Edelsohn, db3l, gvanrossum, larry, ncoghlan, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, sbt, skrah
Date 2013-10-20.19:01:41
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
No, there's a use case for reading after the child exited, if there is a
grandchild still writing.

--Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone)
On Oct 20, 2013 10:37 AM, "Richard Oudkerk" <> wrote:

> Richard Oudkerk added the comment:
> > I guess we'll have to write platform-dependent code and make this an
> > optional feature. (Essentially, on platforms like AIX, for a
> > write-pipe, connection_lost() won't be called unless you try to write
> > some more bytes to it.)
> If we are not capturing stdout/stderr then we could "leak" the write end
> of a pipe to the child.  When the read end becomes readable we can call the
> process protocol's connection_lost().
> Or we could just call connection_lost() when reaping the pid.
> ----------
> nosy: +sbt
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <>
> <>
> _______________________________________
Date User Action Args
2013-10-20 19:01:42gvanrossumsetrecipients: + gvanrossum, db3l, ncoghlan, pitrou, larry, skrah, neologix, python-dev, sbt, David.Edelsohn
2013-10-20 19:01:42gvanrossumlinkissue19293 messages
2013-10-20 19:01:41gvanrossumcreate