Alexandre Vassalotti peadrop.com> writes:
>
> 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:
Unfortunately, in practice, the argument is neither a lower bound nor an upper
bound. It's just used
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Antoine Pitrou 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.
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>
> 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 bi
2009/4/4 Antoine Pitrou :
> 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 an
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 t
