Bob Kline added the comment: Thanks for the very quick follow-up. I may be shooting myself in the foot here, but Sean's encouragement about getting patches to the actual code lead me to wonder if it might be better to go straight for the optimal solution here. As I implied in my original message for this issue, there are approaches for exposing the ability to detect failure which would be more straightforward than testing for field.done == -1. A step in the right direction might be an attribute named something like 'incomplete' (True|False). Or perhaps an access method? Based on my more recent experience with getting code patches accepted, I had settled on just documenting the existing code more fully as a minimal solution, but if Sean's more optimistic advice is justified, I'd be happy to wait a little longer for a cleaner solution (and to pitch in for the work to create it, if that's appropriate). I know I have more than one bit of Python code I wrote years ago for situations similar to this where if I had to do it over again I would have thrown an exception, and maybe that's the right thing to do here, with an optional argument to the constructor which suppresses the exception. Perhaps Guido might want to weigh in with his own preferences (this is his code, and he's still listed as the current maintainer of the module). But I'd rather have the documentation patch for the existing code than nothing at all.
Cheers, Bob __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1172> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
