This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author benjamin.peterson
Recipients benjamin.peterson, daniel.urban, jcon, pitrou, stutzbach
Date 2011-05-04.23:09:55
SpamBayes Score 2.3273113e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <BANLkTi=xy_AjdX3eaX73t2Tur6jDcWLixA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1304550380.39.0.0432443143928.issue9971@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
2011/5/4 John O'Connor <report@bugs.python.org>:
>
> John O'Connor <tehjcon@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> I am new to the community but hoping to start contributing or at least following issues and learning :)
>
> I'm looking at bufferediobase_readinto(). What I haven't yet figured out is why .readinto() is (currently) implemented at this layer of the hierarchy. You have to have a raw read buffer available to read from and I'm not sure how one would acquire that from here (without calling .read() or something that has been overridden and knows about the raw buffer).

Why is that? You can, as the BufferedIOBase implementation does, just
call read() and stick it into the buffer.

>
> I feel like bufferediobase_readinto() should return unsupported. Also readinto(), in theory, is lower level than read. if read isn't implemented at this layer why is readinto()?

To provide a simple implementation for unsophisticated subclasses.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-04 23:09:57benjamin.petersonsetrecipients: + benjamin.peterson, pitrou, stutzbach, daniel.urban, jcon
2011-05-04 23:09:55benjamin.petersonlinkissue9971 messages
2011-05-04 23:09:55benjamin.petersoncreate