Possible read()/readline() bug?

[Mike Kent]

To followup on this:

Terry: Yes, I did in fact miss the 'buffer' parameter to open.
Setting the buffer parameter to 0 did in fact fix the test code that I
gave above, but oddly, did not fix my actual production code; it
continues to get the data as first read, rather than what is currently
on the disk.  I'm still investigating why.

Carl: I tried the above test code, without 'buffer=0' in the open, but
with a flush added before reads in the appropriate places. The flush
made no difference; readline continued to return the old data rather
than what was actually on the disk.  So, flush isn't the answer.  I
suppose that means that, when the document states it flushes the
buffer, it's referring to the output buffer, not the input buffer.