Author martin.panter
Recipients martin.panter
Date 2016-03-13.06:02:00
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1457848921.52.0.892118922102.issue23214@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Looking at this again, I think a less intrusive way forward would be to:

* Document that in 3.6, the required signature is now BufferedIOBase.read1(size). An implementation no longer has to provide a default size, and no longer has to accept negative sizes.

* Explicitly document the behaviour of each concrete implementation like GzipFile.read1(-1) etc, if this behaviour is intentional

* Fix the BufferedReader error so that “read length must not be negative”

Relaxing the read1() signature would allow wider or easier use of BufferedReader, e.g. to implement HTTPResponse as I suggested in Issue 26499. The advantage would be using existing code that is well tested, used, optimized, etc, rather than a custom BufferedIOBase implementation which for the HTTP case is buggy.
History
Date User Action Args
2016-03-13 06:02:01martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter
2016-03-13 06:02:01martin.pantersetmessageid: <1457848921.52.0.892118922102.issue23214@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-03-13 06:02:01martin.panterlinkissue23214 messages
2016-03-13 06:02:00martin.pantercreate