Mark Williams added the comment: Python's test suite may test the current behavior but that does not lessen the problem.
I gave an example of apparently correct code that fails (that was actually encountered by a Python user) in my original description. Another such example: you cannot duplicate a file object -- same path, same mode --- and be sure that the duplicate is a true duplicate. Data corruption could occur in application code if the duplicated file were opened "rb+" instead of "wb+", as the duplicate would not truncate existing data. Another way to think about the problem is accuracy of intent. The mode attribute on file objects can be incorrect, and by "incorrect" I mean "not describe the mode under which the file was opened." Why have a mode attribute at all, then? I, for one, would prefer *no* mode attribute to one that's sometimes incorrect. But a correct one is even better! On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Xiang Zhang <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Xiang Zhang added the comment: > > I think Mark is right. Since wb+ and rb+ have different behaviours they > should be treat separately. > > But this behaviour treating wb+ and rb+ as the same is well tested and > seems to intended to do so. > > ---------- > nosy: +xiang.zhang > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue25341> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25341> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
