On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:49:16 +0200, Thomas Lotze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Scott David Daniels wrote:
>
>> Now if you want to do it for a file, you could do:
>>
>> for c in thefile.read():
>> ....
>
>The whole point of the exercise is that seeking on a file doesn't
>influence iteration over its content. In the loop you suggest, I can
>seek() on thefile to my heart's content and will always get its content
>iterated over exactly from beginning to end. It had been read before any
>of this started, after all. Similarly, thefile.tell() will always tell me
>thefile's size or the place I last seek()'ed to instead of the position of
>the next char I will get.
>
What I suggested in my other post (untested beyond what you see, so you
may want to add to the test ):
----< lotzefile.py >--------------------------------------------------
class LotzeFile(file):
BUFSIZE = 4096
def __init__(self, path, mode='r'):
self.f = file(path, mode)
self.pos = self.bufbase = 0
self.buf = ''
def __iter__(self): return self
def next(self):
if not self.buf[self.pos:]:
self.bufbase += len(self.buf)
self.pos = 0
self.buf = self.f.read(self.BUFSIZE)
if not self.buf:
self.close()
raise StopIteration
byte = self.buf[self.pos]
self.pos += 1
return byte
def seek(self, pos, ref=0):
self.f.seek(pos, ref)
self.bufbase = self.f.tell()
self.pos = 0
self.buf = ''
def tell(self):
return self.bufbase + self.pos
def close(self):
self.f.close()
def test():
f = file('lotzedata.txt','w')
for s in (' %3d'%i for i in xrange(1000)): f.write(s)
f.close()
it = iter(LotzeFile('lotzedata.txt'))
hold4=[0,0,0,0]
for i, c in enumerate(it):
hold4[i%4] = c
if i%4==3:
print hold4
assert (i-3)/4 == int(''.join(hold4))
if i == 99: break
print it.tell()
it.seek(52)
for i in xrange(8): print it.next(),
print
it.seek(990*4)
for c in it: print c,
if __name__ == '__main__':
test()
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Result:
[20:53] C:\pywk\clp>py24 lotze.py
[' ', ' ', ' ', '0']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '1']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '2']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '3']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '4']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '5']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '6']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '7']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '8']
[' ', ' ', ' ', '9']
[' ', ' ', '1', '0']
[' ', ' ', '1', '1']
[' ', ' ', '1', '2']
[' ', ' ', '1', '3']
[' ', ' ', '1', '4']
[' ', ' ', '1', '5']
[' ', ' ', '1', '6']
[' ', ' ', '1', '7']
[' ', ' ', '1', '8']
[' ', ' ', '1', '9']
[' ', ' ', '2', '0']
[' ', ' ', '2', '1']
[' ', ' ', '2', '2']
[' ', ' ', '2', '3']
[' ', ' ', '2', '4']
100
1 3 1 4
9 9 0 9 9 1 9 9 2 9 9 3 9 9 4 9 9 5 9 9 6 9 9 7 9 9 8 9 9 9
I suspect you could get better performance if you made LotzeFile instances able
to
return interators over buffer chunks and get characters from them, which would
be string iterators supplying the characters rather than the custom .next, but
the buffer chunks would have to be of some size to make that pay. Testing is
the only way to find out what the crossing point is, if you really have to.
Regards,
Bengt Richter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
