You're not supposed to do that. I guess the PEP is unclear about that, but the effect would (as you understand) depend intricately on the internal state of the BufferedIO object, and while on the one hand I want the BufferedIO object to be more transparent than a C stdio object, on the other hand I don't want to force it into a particular implementation (I want freedom to evolve it). The PEP ought to be explicit about this. The relationship between the two is not unlike that between a C stdio object and its fileno() -- there are certain times that the relationship is well-defined (e.g. after a fsync()) and others that it is not.
--Guido On 3/25/07, Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've looked at the most recent version at > > http://python.org/dev/peps/pep-3116/ > > and I see nothing in there about the interaction between a BufferedIO > object and its underlying RawIO object. That is, what happens if you do > this: > > f = open('foo', buffering=200) > f.read(150) > f.raw.read(200) > -- > Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ > > "Typing is cheap. Thinking is expensive." --Roy Smith > _______________________________________________ > Python-3000 mailing list > Python-3000@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 > Unsubscribe: > http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
