Christian Heimes added the comment:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I still don't understand. Why do you need to treat a closed fd
> different from an invalid fd. In both cases you can't use it and you
> shouldn't close it.
I don't want to treat the fd differently. I want to return a sensible
error message that is different from "file closed" when the fd is invalid.
> I'd suggest that, on Windows, sys.std{in,out.err} should be set to
> None instead of a file object when their file descriptor is invalid.
> That way print and write requests will fail immediately instead of
> nondeterministically. With an invalid file that only blows upwhen
> trying to flush you may be able to write a small traceback but it will
> still blow up if the traceback is big.
But wouldn't that cause a fatal error when sys.stderr is missing and
Python can't write the traceback to a file like object?
*testing*
No, it works:
object : Exception('msg',)
type : Exception
refcount: 4
address : 0x839d274
lost sys.stderr
I've an alternative solution based on Amaurgy's idea. Python could set
replacements for stdin, stdout and stderr before it sets up the
preliminary stderr:
#ifdef MS_WINDOWS
/* The standard streams of Windows GUI apps aren't connected. */
if (fileno(stdin) < 0) {
if (freopen("NUL", "rb", stdin) == NULL)
Py_FatalError("Py_Initialize: failed to replace stdin");
}
if (fileno(stdout) < 0) {
if (freopen("NUL", "wb", stdout) == NULL)
Py_FatalError("Py_Initialize: failed to replace
stdout");
}
if (fileno(stderr) < 0) {
if (freopen("NUL", "wb", stderr) == NULL)
Py_FatalError("Py_Initialize: failed to replace
stderr");
}
#endif
__________________________________
Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1415>
__________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
