Author loewis
Recipients benjamin.peterson, hynek, loewis, nikratio, pitrou, stutzbach, vstinner
Date 2014-04-14.02:55:24
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1397444124.76.0.57424081707.issue20578@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> I didn't even notice the readinto implementation was missing. But I
> agree, if we keep readinto1(), we should also add readinto().
[...]
> Maybe this is why we seem to be talking past each other :-). I did not 
> look or work on readinto at all. All I noticed is that there is a read1, 
> but no readinto1. So I implemented a readinto1 as well as I could.

I see. It's not actually true that there is no readinto - it's inherited from the base class.

I think it is more important that the implementation is consistent than that it is performant (but achieving both should be possible).

Whether or not _pyio needs to be performant, I don't know. Having it consistent with _io would be desirable, but might not be possible.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-04-14 02:55:24loewissetrecipients: + loewis, pitrou, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, stutzbach, nikratio, hynek
2014-04-14 02:55:24loewissetmessageid: <1397444124.76.0.57424081707.issue20578@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-04-14 02:55:24loewislinkissue20578 messages
2014-04-14 02:55:24loewiscreate