Message151104
| Author | cameron |
|---|---|
| Recipients | cameron, georg.brandl, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2012-01-12.01:12:35 |
| SpamBayes Score | 4.8861202e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1326330756.01.0.841407514223.issue13761@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I'm against ignoring a flush failure. What happened to "errors should never pass silently"? IMO, if we get as far as calling flush and having an exception occur, a "more interesting error" hasn't yet occurred. I really dislike things that fail silently. If the caller asks print to flush, and the flush fails, the caller's request has not been met. The caller needs to know or incorrect behaviour can ensue. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-01-12 01:12:36 | cameron | set | recipients: + cameron, gvanrossum, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, giampaolo.rodola |
| 2012-01-12 01:12:36 | cameron | set | messageid: <1326330756.01.0.841407514223.issue13761@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-01-12 01:12:35 | cameron | link | issue13761 messages |
| 2012-01-12 01:12:35 | cameron | create | |