Guido van Rossum
gvanrossum at gmail.com
Sun May 19 16:47:14 CEST 2013
Fake values would probably cause hard to debug problems. It's a long standing Python tradition not to offer low level APIs that the platform doesn't have.
Sent from Mailbox
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:08:39 +0200
> Charles-François Natali <cf.natali at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2013/5/17 Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net>:
>> > Hello,
>> > Some pieces of code are still guarded by:
>> > #ifdef HAVE_FSTAT
>> > ...
>> > #endif
>> > I would expect all systems to have fstat() these days. It's pretty
>> > basic POSIX, and even Windows has had it for ages. Shouldn't we simply
>> > make those code blocks unconditional? It would avoid having to maintain
>> > unused fallback paths.
>> I was sure I'd seen a post/bug report about this:
>> The OP was trying to build Python on an embedded platform without fstat().
> Ah, right. Ok, judging by the answers I'm being consistent in my
> opinions :-)
> I still wonder why an embedded platform can't provide at least some
> emulation of fstat(), even by returning fake values. Not providing
> such a basic function must break a lot of existing third-party software.
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev