On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We reached an important milestone in the IronPython project this week
>> with the release of IronPython 2.0 beta 4. But it's not our code that
>>
FWIW, the rest of this discussion is now happening in the tracker:
http://bugs.python.org/issue3300. We could really use some feedback
from Python users in Asian countries.
--
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
___
Python-Dev
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Curt Hagenlocher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We reached an important milestone in the IronPython project this week
> with the release of IronPython 2.0 beta 4. But it's not our code that
> makes this release so remarkable -- it's yours, the Python developers.
> Fo
We reached an important milestone in the IronPython project this week
with the release of IronPython 2.0 beta 4. But it's not our code that
makes this release so remarkable -- it's yours, the Python developers.
For the first time, Microsoft is including the standard Python
library as part of what
OK I finished a patch that exposes os.fullfsync on platforms that
support it, and I added the corresponding documentation in
Doc/library/os.rst
Any comments?
http://bugs.python.org/issue3517
-ian
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Ian Charnas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Excellent comments, every
Excellent comments, everyone. It looks like I didn't know the full
situation, thanks scott for pointing me towards that email on
darwin-dev. The email said that fsync on OS X does indeed force a
flush from the operating system to the hard drive (so my earlier
understanding was incorrect), but da
> I can't think of a situation where it would be useful to do an fsync()
> in which you don't want the data to be flushed as far as possible.
Essentially, you are saying that you don't see a use for fsync. If
that's the case, then this API should be removed from Python completely.
As all others h
Wow .. a lot of replies today!
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:09 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> It hasn't been given priority: There are currently 606 patches in the
> tracker, many fixing bugs of some sort. It's not clear (to me, at least)
> why this should be given priority over al
