Bruce Merry <bme...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> static_buffers is not a static variable. It is auto local variable. > So I think other thread don't hijack it. Oh yes, quite right. I should have looked closer at the code first before commenting. I think this can be closed as not-a-bug, unless +tzickel has example code that gives the wrong output? > perhaps add an if to check if the backing object is really mutable ? > (Py_buffer.readonly) It's not just the buffer data being mutable that's an issue, it's the owning object. It's possible for an object to expose a read-only buffer, but also allow the buffer (including its size or address) to be mutated through its own API. > Also, semi related, (dunno where to discuss it), would a good .join() > optimization be to add an optional length parameter, like .join(iterable, > length=10) You could always open a separate bug for it, but I can't see it catching on given that one needs to modify one's code for it. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39974> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
