First write a utf-16 file with its signature:

>> f1 = open('utf16.txt', 'w', encoding='utf-16')
>> f1.write('0123456789')
>> f1.close()

Then read it twice:

>>> f2 = open('utf16.txt', 'r', encoding='utf-16')
>>> print('read1', ascii(f2.read()))
read1 '0123456789'
>>> f2.seek(0)
0
>>> print('read2', ascii(f2.read()))
read2 '\ufeff0123456789'

The second read returns the BOM!
This is because the zero in seek(0) is a "cookie" which contains both the position
and the decoder state. Unfortunately, state=0 means 'endianness has been determined:
native order'.

maybe a suggestion: handle seek(0) as a special value which calls decoder.reset().
The patch implement this idea.

This is because the zero in seek(0) is a "cookie"
which contains both the position and the decoder state.
Unfortunately, state=0 means 'endianness has been determined:
native order'.

The problem is maybe that TextIOWrapper._pack_cookie() can create a
cookie=0. Example to create a non-null value, replace:
def _pack_cookie(self, position, ...):
return (position | (dec_flags<<64) | ...
def _unpack_cookie(self, bigint):
rest, position = divmod(bigint, 1<<64)
...
by
def _pack_cookie(self, position, ...):
return (1 | (position<<1) | (dec_flags<<65) | ...
def _unpack_cookie(self, bigint):
if not (bigint & 1):
raise ValueError("invalid cookie")
bigint >>= 1
rest, position = divmod(bigint, 1<<64)
...

Why the cookie is an integer and not an object with attributes?

The problem is maybe that TextIOWrapper._pack_cookie()
can create a cookie=0

But only when position==0.
And in this case, at the beginning of the stream, it makes sense to
reset everything to its initial value: zero for the various counts, and
call decoder.reset()

Well, there are other problems with utf-16, e.g. when opening an
existing file for appending, the BOM is written again:

>>> f = open('utf16.txt', 'w', encoding='utf-16')
>>> f.write('abc')
3
>>> f.close()
>>> f = open('utf16.txt', 'a', encoding='utf-16')
>>> f.write('def')
3
>>> f.close()
>>> open('utf16.txt', 'r', encoding='utf-16').read()
'abc\ufeffdef'

Who said TextIOWrapper was sane? :-o

On 2009-01-07 01:21, Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote:
> First write a utf-16 file with its signature:
> 
>>>> f1 = open('utf16.txt', 'w', encoding='utf-16')
>>>> f1.write('0123456789')
>>>> f1.close()
> 
> Then read it twice:
> 
>>>> f2 = open('utf16.txt', 'r', encoding='utf-16')
>>>> print('read1', ascii(f2.read()))
> read1 '0123456789'
>>>> f2.seek(0)
> 0
>>>> print('read2', ascii(f2.read()))
> read2 '\ufeff0123456789'
> 
> The second read returns the BOM!
> This is because the zero in seek(0) is a "cookie" which contains both the position 
> and the decoder state. Unfortunately, state=0 means 'endianness has been determined: 
> native order'.
> 
> maybe a suggestion: handle seek(0) as a special value which calls decoder.reset().
> The patch implement this idea.

This is a problem with the utf_16.py codec, not the io layer.
Opening a file in append mode is something that the io layer
would have to handle, since the codec doesn't know anything about
the underlying file mode.

Using .reset() will not help. The code for the StreamReader
and StreamWriter in utf_16.py will have to be modified to undo
the adjustment of the .encode() and .decode() method after using
.seek(0).

Note that there's also the case .seek(1) - I guess this must
be considered as resulting in undefined behavior.

I support Amaury's suggestion (actually I implemented it in the io-c
branch). Resetting the decoder when seeking to the beginning of the
stream is a reasonable way to deal with those incremental decoders for
which the start state is something else than (b"", 0).

(and, you're right, opening in append mode is a different problem...)

I opened a different issue (bpo-5006) for the duplicate BOM in append
mode.

This has been fixed by the io-c branch merge.

This has been fixed by the io-c branch merge.

Can you at least include the patch to test_io.py from amaury's patch?

And why not fixing the Python version of the io module (i'm not sure
of the new name: _pyio?) since we have a working patch?

Ah, I forgot this wasn't applied to the Python implementation. Fixed in
r70184.

@benjamin: ok, great.