Message261672
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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2016-03-13 06:02:01 | martin.panter | set | recipients:
+ martin.panter |
2016-03-13 06:02:01 | martin.panter | set | messageid: <1457848921.52.0.892118922102.issue23214@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2016-03-13 06:02:01 | martin.panter | link | issue23214 messages |
2016-03-13 06:02:00 | martin.panter | create | |
|