Steffen Daode Nurpmeso <sdao...@googlemail.com> added the comment: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 08:17:30PM +0000, R. David Murray wrote: > [...] rather odd considering that there is also a 'closed' > method that would fail similarly if close was ever called.
Maybe someone got not enough feedback after she wrote the patch. > (The only use for the existing 'closed' method that I can see is > to see if somebody else closed the file out from under the > ProxyFile, a 'feature' that seems of dubious utility.) After i've read io.rst - as above - i thought someone started to comply to one of the interfaces shown therein, went away because the current bug was fixed and there was no more time left at the moment to continue the work ... and actually never found back to do so. This really made sense to me because that actually happened a few days after i first got on the Internet to contact python.org. I would like to say that if someone reads "file-like objects" in io.rst and then also in mailbox.rst, and uses a box.get_file() returned object with that description in mind, there will be inconsistent failures. > Steffen, [...] I plan to close this issue by applying my patch. That is a pity. But the main thing is that the bug gets fixed. - .closed is better than my version (talking about .sigh). - I would add a self.assertFalse(proxy.closed) test before the first .close(). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11700> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
