Re: [Python-Dev] error in doc for fcntl module

2009-01-08 Thread Martin v. Löwis
> Is there any reason not to change this? Apart from the effort it makes to talk about it, and to review and apply the patch? No. Regards, Martin P.S. You really do need to trust that the system calls get forwarded by Python to the system as-is, with no additional trickery. If there is additiona

Re: [Python-Dev] error in doc for fcntl module

2009-01-08 Thread Guido van Rossum
Unless documented otherwise, the Python wrappers for system calls are as low-level as possible, sticking as close to the system call semantics as possible. I do think you may be reading too much into the whole thing. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Mike Coleman wrote: > One problem is that API w

Re: [Python-Dev] error in doc for fcntl module

2009-01-08 Thread Mike Coleman
One problem is that API wrappers like this sometimes include extra functionality. When I ran across this example, I wondered whether the Python interface had been enhanced to work like this # set these three flags rv = fcntl.fcntl(f, fcntl.F_SETFL, os.O_NDELAY) rv = fcntl.fcntl(f, fcn

Re: [Python-Dev] error in doc for fcntl module

2009-01-07 Thread Guido van Rossum
Well my Linux man page says that the only flags supported are O_APPEND, O_ASYNC, O_DIRECT, O_NOATIME, and O_NONBLOCK; and all of those are typically off -- so I'm not sure that it's a mistake or need correcting. These APIs should only be used by people who know what they're doing anyways; the exa