Hello,
bitdance.com> writes:
>
> Since the 'pipe' comment is an XXX, it is not clear that my use case
> is covered. However, the actual implementation of readinto seems to
> only call 'read' once, so as long as the 'read' of the subclass returns
> whatever bytes are available, then it looks go
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 at 20:31, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:38 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 at 21:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
I *think* the 2.x system had an internal buffer that was used by the
file iterator, but not by the file methods
Terry Reedy wrote:
> I suspect your original query got lost in the shuffle. If you do not
> get an answer this time, file an issue on the tracker bugs.python.org
> but do not select whether it is a behavior or doc issue. At least, it
> will stay open until resolved.
Filing a tracker issue is prob
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:38 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 at 21:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>>
>> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> I *think* the 2.x system had an internal buffer that was used by the
>>> file iterator, but not by the file methods. With the new IO stack for
>>> 3.0, ther
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 at 21:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
I *think* the 2.x system had an internal buffer that was used by the
file iterator, but not by the file methods. With the new IO stack for
3.0, there is now a common buffer shared by all the file operations
(in
Mitchell L Model wrote:
In Digest Vol. 67, Issue 52 (13 Feb 2009) I pointed out that Python 2's
prohibition against performing readlines on a file being iterated over
appears to have been lifted in Python 3. I asked if this was intentional
and whether it should be add to the "What's New" docume
Hello,
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
>
> I *think* the 2.x system had an internal buffer that was used by the
> file iterator, but not by the file methods. With the new IO stack for
> 3.0, there is now a common buffer shared by all the file operations
> (including iteration).
>
> However, gi
Mitchell L Model wrote:
> I didn't get any response. Is this the wrong list for the question? Did
> appropriate responders assume another would respond?
Probably the latter (I know I left it to those that had more to do with
the IO stack rewrite). This is definitely the right list for the question
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Mitchell L Model wrote:
> I'd appreciate comments -- especially a redirection to a different list, if
> this one isn't appropriate for my query.
It seems as though you have the right list, but perhaps whoever knows
about the change is busy, or maybe several peopl
In Digest Vol. 67, Issue 52 (13 Feb 2009) I pointed out that Python
2's prohibition against performing readlines on a file being iterated
over appears to have been lifted in Python 3. I asked if this was
intentional and whether it should be add to the "What's New"
documentation. I also express
I discovered today that Python 2's prohibition against performing
readlines on a file being iterated over appears to have been lifted
in Python 3. Is this intentional? If it is, should it be added to the
What's New in the documentation? I haven't been able to find anything
mentioning the change
11 matches
Mail list logo
