Message263304
| Author | martin.panter |
|---|---|
| Recipients | benjamin.peterson, martin.panter, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, stutzbach |
| Date | 2016-04-13.04:24:46 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1460521486.18.0.156961089348.issue26720@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
The trouble with my original idea is that it is complex to implement, and inconsistent. If you wrote small amounts to your BufferedWriter, you would get a memoryview of bytes that you save for later. If there was a write of a large bytes object, we could pass a memoryview of that bytes object (or the actual bytes object). But if there was a write of a large bytearray, we could end up locking that bytearray, preventing it from being resized, and there could be problems mutating the bytearray. Because I can’t see how to eliminate all inconsistencies, I prefer to document against saving the memoryview for later. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-04-13 04:24:46 | martin.panter | set | recipients: + martin.panter, pitrou, benjamin.peterson, stutzbach, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2016-04-13 04:24:46 | martin.panter | set | messageid: <1460521486.18.0.156961089348.issue26720@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016-04-13 04:24:46 | martin.panter | link | issue26720 messages |
| 2016-04-13 04:24:46 | martin.panter | create | |