Message216059
> 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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-04-14 02:55:24 | loewis | set | recipients:
+ loewis, pitrou, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, stutzbach, nikratio, hynek |
2014-04-14 02:55:24 | loewis | set | messageid: <1397444124.76.0.57424081707.issue20578@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-04-14 02:55:24 | loewis | link | issue20578 messages |
2014-04-14 02:55:24 | loewis | create | |
|