This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients barry, chuck, exarkun, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, ivank, loewis, pitrou
Date 2009-11-23.19:51:23
SpamBayes Score 0.0001111958
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1259005903.3519.11.camel@localhost>
In-reply-to <>
> As for the checks for bf_releasebuffer: I still think they are
> necessary. If an object implements bf_releasebuffer, that means that the
> object may change the buffer underneath, unless proper locking and
> unlocking takes place.

I know, but the problem is that by switching some argument definitions
to "s*" and friends we have broken compatibility for the (admittedly
uncommon) use case of giving an array object to those functions. Since
we probably don't want to backout those changes perhaps adding support
for the new buffer API to the array object is the best course of action.
Date User Action Args
2009-11-23 19:51:25pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, loewis, barry, georg.brandl, gregory.p.smith, exarkun, ivank, chuck
2009-11-23 19:51:23pitroulinkissue6071 messages
2009-11-23 19:51:23pitroucreate