Message77180
| Author | amaury.forgeotdarc |
|---|---|
| Recipients | amaury.forgeotdarc, christian.heimes, giampaolo.rodola, ialbert, pitrou |
| Date | 2008-12-06.22:48:37 |
| SpamBayes Score | 4.064486e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1228603718.23.0.209098567864.issue4565@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> I'm a bit surprised by the adopted approach. > It seems you are merely translating the Python code into C. > I think the proper approach for the buffered IO classes would be > to use a fixed-size buffer which never gets reallocated. You are certainly right, but the code io.py is already difficult to understand and maintain; the corresponding C code adds one level of complexity; had I changed the buffering strategy at the same time, it would have been impossible to ensure a correct implementation. Now that my C implementation of the Buffered classes seems correct (all tests pass, except a few about destructors) we could try alternative approaches. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008-12-06 22:48:38 | amaury.forgeotdarc | set | recipients: + amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, christian.heimes, ialbert |
| 2008-12-06 22:48:38 | amaury.forgeotdarc | set | messageid: <1228603718.23.0.209098567864.issue4565@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008-12-06 22:48:37 | amaury.forgeotdarc | link | issue4565 messages |
| 2008-12-06 22:48:37 | amaury.forgeotdarc | create | |