On 11Mar2009 02:20, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
| Christian Heimes <lists <at> cheimes.de> writes:
| > I agree with you, fsync() shouldn't be called by default. I didn't plan
| > on adding fsync() calls all over our code. However I like to suggest a
| > file.sync() method and a synced flag for files to make the job of
| > application developers easier.
|
| We already have os.fsync() and os.fdatasync(). Should the sync() (and
| datasync()?) method be added as an object-oriented convenience?
I can imagine plenty of occasions when there may not be an available
file descriptor to hand to os.fsync() et al. Having sync() and
datasync() methods in the object would obviate the need for the caller
to know the object internals.
--
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
I must construct my own System, or be enslaved to another Man's.
- William Blake
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4