Guido van Rossum added the comment: No, there's a use case for reading after the child exited, if there is a grandchild still writing.
--Guido van Rossum (sent from Android phone) On Oct 20, 2013 10:37 AM, "Richard Oudkerk" <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Richard Oudkerk added the comment: > > > I guess we'll have to write platform-dependent code and make this an > > optional feature. (Essentially, on platforms like AIX, for a > > write-pipe, connection_lost() won't be called unless you try to write > > some more bytes to it.) > > If we are not capturing stdout/stderr then we could "leak" the write end > of a pipe to the child. When the read end becomes readable we can call the > process protocol's connection_lost(). > > Or we could just call connection_lost() when reaping the pid. > > ---------- > nosy: +sbt > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue19293> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19293> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
