STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> added the comment:
Le vendredi 25 mars 2011 à 00:54 +0000, David-Sarah Hopwood a écrit :
> David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sa...@jacaranda.org> added the comment:
>
> I wrote:
> $ python3 -c 'import sys; sys.stdout.write("foo");
> sys.stdout.buffer.write(b"bar"); sys.stdout.write("baz\n")'
> barfoobaz
>
> Hmm, the behaviour actually would differ here: the proposed
> implementation would print
>
> foobaz
> bar
>
> (the "foobaz\n" is written by a call to WriteConsoleW and then the
> "bar" gets flushed to stdout when the process exits).
>
> But since the naive expectation is "foobarbaz\n" and you already have
> to flush after each call in order to get that, I think this change in
> behaviour would be unlikely to affect correct applications.
I would not call this "naive". "foobaz\nbar" is really weird. I think
that sys.stdout and sys.stdout.buffer will both have to flush after each
write, or they may be desynchronized.
Some developers already think that adding sys.stdout.flush() after
print("Processing.. ", end='') is too hard (#11633). So I cannot imagine
how they would react if they will have to do it explicitly after all
print, sys.stdout.write() and sys.stdout.buffer.write().
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1602>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
