On 6/23/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/23/07, Alexandre Vassalotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think found a bug in the implementation of StringIO/BytesIO in the > > new io module. I would like to fix it, but I am not sure what should > > be the correct behavior. Any hint on this? > > BytesIO should behave the way Unix files work: just seeking only sets > the read/write position, but writing inserts null bytes between the > existing end of the file and the new write position. (Writing zero > bytes doesn't count; I've just experimentally verified this.)
I agree with this. I will try to write a patch to fix io.BytesIO. > I think however that for StringIO this should not be allowed -- seek() > on StringIO is only allowed to accept cookies returned by tell() on > the same file object. I am not sure what you mean, by "cookies", here. So, do you mean StringIO would not be allowed to seek beyond the end-of-file? > > And one more thing, the close method on StringIO/BytesIO objects > > doesn't work. I will try to fix that too. > > What do you want it to do? I'm thinking perhaps it doesn't need to do > anything. Free the resources held by the object, and make all methods of the object raise a ValueError if they are used. -- Alexandre _______________________________________________ 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
