On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > Hello, > > Currently, BufferedReader.peek() ignores its argument and can return more or > less than the number of bytes requested by the user. This is how it was > implemented in the Python version, and we've reflected this in the C version. > > It seems a bit strange and unhelpful though. Should we change the > implementation > so that the argument to peek() becomes the upper bound to the number of bytes > returned? >
I am not sure if this is a good idea. Currently, the argument of peek() is documented as a lower bound that cannot exceed the size of the buffer: Returns buffered bytes without advancing the position. The argument indicates a desired minimal number of bytes; we do at most one raw read to satisfy it. We never return more than self.buffer_size. Changing the meaning of peek() now could introduce at least some confusion and maybe also bugs. And personally, I like the current behavior, since it guarantees that peek() won't return an empty string unless you reached the end-of-file. Plus, it is fairly easy to cap the number of bytes returned by doing f.peek()[:upper_bound]. -- Alexandre _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com