Nobody nobody@nowhere.invalid:
Asynchronous I/O in the sense of select(), poll(), O_NONBLOCK etc is
meant for situations where delays could be indefinite, e.g. network
connections or terminals. For short delays (i.e. disc access),
there's not much point having a mechanism so that you can
Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net:
Python's sockets and pipes don't have write methods.
Actually, that's mistaken as well. The sys.std* handles and pipes
returned by subprocess are accessed using file.write() and thus may
return partial writes.
That brings up another point: Python3's
Roy Smith wrote:
Yes and no. If something goes wrong in a .write() method,
is not Python supposed to raise an error? (!)
Define wrong. It is not an error for a write() call to consume fewer
bytes than were requested.
It's not? I'm asking a genuine question here, not a rhetorical one. I
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Yes and no. If something goes wrong in a .write() method,
is not Python supposed to raise an error? (!)
Define wrong. It is not an error for a write() call to consume fewer
bytes
In article 544e2cf2$0$13009$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Yes and no. If something goes wrong in a .write() method,
is not Python supposed to raise an error? (!)
Define wrong. It is not an error for a
On 2014-10-25, Wolfgang Maier wolfgang.ma...@biologie.uni-freiburg.de wrote:
It may be rare to use an expression both for its side-effects and its
return value,
It's actually quite common.
For example:
f = open(filename)
d = f.readline()
In both of those lines, the side effects and
On 2014-10-27, Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
Roy Smith wrote:
Yes and no. If something goes wrong in a .write() method,
is not Python supposed to raise an error? (!)
Define wrong. It is not an error for a write() call to consume fewer
bytes than were
Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid:
If you really want to make sure that all bytes get written, you _must_
put all write() calls in a loop that checks the return value and keeps
re-writing any unwritten data.
And to answer your next question: yes, Unix application programmers
have been
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:14:58 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
In POSIX, a write(2) system call on file blocks until all bytes have been
passed on to the file system. The only exception (no pun intended) I know
is the reception of a signal.
Writing to a file (or block device) will return a short
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:45:49 -0700, wxjmfauth wrote:
Ditto for fileobj.write(). Why should it return something ?
with open('z.txt', 'w') as f:
... f.write('abc')
...
3
OTOH, why shouldn't it return something? In this case, it returns the
length of the string written. This value
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:11:43 PM UTC+5:30, Dan Sommers wrote:
At one time, on a huge project, millions of lines of C and assembly
code, we had a local guideline *not* to write void functions. The idea
was to return something that might be useful later, even if it seemed
unlikely now.
wxjmfa...@gmail.com:
Yes and no. If something goes wrong in a .write() method,
is not Python supposed to raise an error? (!)
We have multiple cases:
1. write succeeds with all of the given bytes
2. write succeeds with some but not all of the given bytes
3. write cannot at the moment
In article 683c84d8-d916-4b63-b4b2-92cd2763e...@googlegroups.com,
wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le dimanche 26 octobre 2014 14:41:43 UTC+1, Dan Sommers a écrit :
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:45:49 -0700, wxjmfauth wrote:
Ditto for fileobj.write(). Why should it return something ?
with
Moved from other (Seymore's) thread where this is perhaps not relevant
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:15:09 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Rustom Mody wrote:
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:20:03 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
On 25.10.2014 19:27, Rustom Mody wrote:
Moved from other (Seymore's) thread where this is perhaps not relevant
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:15:09 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Rustom Mody wrote:
On Saturday, October 25, 2014 11:20:03 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Oct
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 23:41:52 +0200, Wolfgang Maier wrote:
... It may be rare to use an expression both for its side-effects and
its return value ...
A lot of concurrency-related operations work that way. In the old days,
it was CPU-level Test and Set (or Compare and Set) instructions. These
On 10/25/2014 6:22 PM, Dan Sommers wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 23:41:52 +0200, Wolfgang Maier wrote:
... It may be rare to use an expression both for its side-effects and
its return value ...
A lot of concurrency-related operations work that way. In the old days,
it was CPU-level Test and
17 matches
Mail list logo
