Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> added the comment:
Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the email list as I've been banned from
contributing to Python by Raymond Hettinger
________________________________
From: Martin v. Löwis <rep...@bugs.python.org>
To: breamore...@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Tue, 21 September, 2010 16:53:27
Subject: [issue678250] test_mmap failling on AIX
Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> added the comment:
> Interestingly, the matter was discussed on another issue, #2643. I
> also agree that ideally flush() should become a no-op (only in 3.2,
> since it would break compatibility). But then we should also expose a
> separate sync() method with the current behaviour.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that flush should become
a noop entirely - only for ACCESS_COPY mappings.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue678250>
_______________________________________
----------
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file18955/unnamed
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue678250>
_______________________________________
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;}
--></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new
york,times,serif;font-size:12pt"><div>Please ensure tha I'm taken off of the
email list as I've been banned from contributing to Python by Raymond
Hettinger<br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new
york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family:
arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr
size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Martin v. Löwis
<rep...@bugs.python.org><br><b><span style="font-weight:
bold;">To:</span></b> breamore...@yahoo.co.uk<br><b><span style="font-weight:
bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tue, 21 September, 2010 16:53:27<br><b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> [issue678250] test_mmap failling
on AIX<br></font><br><br>Martin v. Löwis <<a
ymailto="mailto:mar...@v.loewis.de";
href="mailto:mar...@v.loewis.de";>mar...@v.loewis.de</a>> added the
comment:<br><br>> Interestingly, the matter was discussed on another issue,
#2643. I<br>> also agree that ideally flush() should become a no-op (only in
3.2,<br>> since it would break compatibility). But then we should also
expose a<br>> separate sync() method with the current behaviour.<br><br>I
think you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that flush should become<br>a noop
entirely - only for ACCESS_COPY
mappings.<br><br>----------<br><br>_______________________________________<br>Python
tracker <<a ymailto="mailto:rep...@bugs.python.org";
href="mailto:rep...@bugs.python.org";>rep...@bugs.python.org</a>><br><<a
href="http://bugs.python.org/issue678250";
target="_blank">http://bugs.python.org/issue678250</a>><br>_______________________________________<br></div></div>
</div><br>
</body></html>_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
