Re: strange note in fcntl docs

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:54:46PM -0600, Skip Montanaro wrote: > > John> And, even if they were, the note is *still* wrong and misleading: > John> fcntl is available on Windows, and os.open's flags won't be. > > Does this read better? > > [snip] yes, and it takes me back to considering

Re: strange note in fcntl docs

John> And, even if they were, the note is *still* wrong and misleading: John> fcntl is available on Windows, and os.open's flags won't be. Does this read better? Skip -- *** /tmp/skip/ediffdJAG2X Mon Jan 17 21:53:05 2005 --- /Users/skip/src/python/head/dist/src/Doc/lib/lib

Re: strange note in fcntl docs

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:01:25AM -0600, Skip Montanaro wrote: > > I could have sworn that os.open supported the O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK flags. > I'm pretty sure I've used them in the past, but don't see them now. (They > aren't in 2.2 either.) > > If you try this: > > O_SHLOCK = 0x0010 >

Re: strange note in fcntl docs

Skip> I could have sworn that os.open supported the O_SHLOCK and Skip> O_EXLOCK flags. I submitted a patch to posixmodule.c for these: http://python.org/sf/1103951 Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: strange note in fcntl docs

John> In the fnctl docs for both python 2.3 and 2.4 there is a note at John> the bottom that says John> The os.open() function supports locking flags and is available on John> a wider variety of platforms than the lockf() and flock() John> functions, providing a more platform-

strange note in fcntl docs

In the fnctl docs for both python 2.3 and 2.4 there is a note at the bottom that says The os.open() function supports locking flags and is available on a wider variety of platforms than the lockf() and flock() functions, providing a more platform-independent file locking facility.