Martin v. Löwis <mar...@v.loewis.de> 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.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not proposing that flush should become a noop entirely - only for ACCESS_COPY mappings. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
