Author vstinner
Recipients Andrew.Boettcher, ajaksu2, akira, astrand, cvrebert, ericpruitt, eryksun, giampaolo.rodola, janzert, josiahcarlson, ooooooooo, parameter, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, sbt, techtonik, v+python, vstinner
Date 2014-04-16.07:28:27
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1397633307.92.0.404191877838.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I started to review the patch 5:
http://bugs.python.org/review/1191964/#ps11598

When I read unit tests, I realized that I don't like "write_nonblocking" name. It's too generic. A process has many files (more than just stdin, stdout, stderr: see pass_fds parameter of Popen). I would like an explicit "write_stdin_nonblocking" and "read_stdout_nonblocking".
History
Date User Action Args
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, josiahcarlson, astrand, parameter, techtonik, giampaolo.rodola, ajaksu2, ooooooooo, v+python, r.david.murray, cvrebert, ericpruitt, akira, Andrew.Boettcher, rosslagerwall, sbt, janzert, eryksun
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnersetmessageid: <1397633307.92.0.404191877838.issue1191964@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnerlinkissue1191964 messages
2014-04-16 07:28:27vstinnercreate