Message126807
| Author | nadeem.vawda |
|---|---|
| Recipients | MizardX, eric.araujo, nadeem.vawda, niemeyer, pitrou, rhettinger, wrobell, xuanji |
| Date | 2011-01-22.00:49:16 |
| SpamBayes Score | 6.635925e-11 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1295657359.57.0.620635465813.issue5863@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I have been working on a patch for this issue. I've implemented everything except for readline(), readlines() and the iterator protocol. In the existing implementation, the reading methods seem to interact weirdly - iternext() uses a readahead buffer, while none of the other methods do. Does anyone know if there's a reason for this? I was planning on having all the reading methods use a common buffer, which should allow free mixing of read methods and iteration. Looking at issue8397, I'm guessing it would be fine, but I wanted to double-check in case there's a quirk of the iteration protocol that I've overlooked, or something like that. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-01-22 00:49:19 | nadeem.vawda | set | recipients: + nadeem.vawda, rhettinger, niemeyer, pitrou, wrobell, eric.araujo, MizardX, xuanji |
| 2011-01-22 00:49:19 | nadeem.vawda | set | messageid: <1295657359.57.0.620635465813.issue5863@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011-01-22 00:49:16 | nadeem.vawda | link | issue5863 messages |
| 2011-01-22 00:49:16 | nadeem.vawda | create | |