Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: Interestingly, the matter was discussed on another issue, #2643. I also agree that ideally flush() should become a no-op (only in 3.2, since it would break compatibility). But then we should also expose a separate sync() method with the current behaviour.
---------- nosy: +pitrou _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue678250> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
