[issue1035] bytes buffer API needs to support read locking and/or PyBUF_LOCKDATA

Changes by Gregory P. Smith: -- status: pending -> closed __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: htt

[issue1035] bytes buffer API needs to support read locking and/or PyBUF_LOCKDATA

Christian Heimes added the comment: *ping* Can this issue be closed? -- nosy: +tiran resolution: -> fixed status: open -> pending __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ ___

[issue1035] bytes buffer API needs to support read locking and/or PyBUF_LOCKDATA

Brett Cannon added the comment: On 10/7/07, Gregory P. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [SNIP] > Feel free to close this bug in favor of something that just tracks the > PEP being implemented. Eh, it can stay open as a reminder to double-check everything is fine once PEP 3137 goes in. It's real

[issue1035] bytes buffer API needs to support read locking and/or PyBUF_LOCKDATA

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: This bug will be taken care of by PEP 3137 http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-3137/ being implemented. Anyways, no the _bsddb.c changes that I checked in do not cause a problem because I checked them in using PyBUF_SIMPLE. Until PEP 3137 is implemented the possib

[issue1035] bytes buffer API needs to support read locking and/or PyBUF_LOCKDATA

Brett Cannon added the comment: All the tests pass for me, Gregory. Were the failures with some patch you had only locally? -- nosy: +brett.cannon priority: -> normal __ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___

[issue1035] bytes buffer API needs to support read locking and/or PyBUF_LOCKDATA

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: Attaching the most recent patch (minor update from the second one i sent to the python-3000 mailing list to initialize ob_readonly_exports = 0 in the appropriate places). Current mailing list discussion is pointing out that the name LOCKDATA means something ot