Interactive scripts (back on topic for once) [was Re: The "loop and a half"]
Marko Rauhamaa
marko at pacujo.net
Fri Oct 6 14:01:51 EDT 2017
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Oct 6 14:01:51 EDT 2017
- Previous message (by thread): Interactive scripts (back on topic for once) [was Re: The "loop and a half"]
- Next message (by thread): Interactive scripts (back on topic for once) [was Re: The "loop and a half"]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com>: > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2017-10-06, Thomas Jollans <tjol at tjol.eu> wrote: >>> Seriously? sys.stdin can be None? That's terrifying. >> >> Why? >> >> Unix daemons usually run with no stdin, stderr, or stdout. >> >> And yes, people do write Unix daemons in Python. > > Hmm, but usually I would expect them still to HAVE those streams, > they're just connected to /dev/null or something. I don't think they > would actually fail to exist, would they? The reason a daemon usually opens dummy file descriptors for the 0, 1 and 2 slots is to avoid accidents. Some library might assume the existence of those file descriptors. For example, I often see GTK print out diagnositic messages. It would be awkward if those file descriptor slots were assigned to, say, a database or a socket. Marko
- Previous message (by thread): Interactive scripts (back on topic for once) [was Re: The "loop and a half"]
- Next message (by thread): Interactive scripts (back on topic for once) [was Re: The "loop and a half"]
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list