Nikolaus Rath added the comment: On 07/24/2013 02:28 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > > Le mercredi 24 juillet 2013 à 18:24 +0000, Nikolaus Rath a écrit : >> There should be no problem reading 20 bytes with a single call to >> BytesIO.read(), yet the buffered reader returns only 10 bytes. > > Er. Your bug report seems to imply that read1(n) can return *more* than > n bytes, which would be a bug. > That it may return less than n bytes is correct, though.
I admit the bug title may not have been chosen carefully enough. The documentation is correct that read1(n) never returns more than n bytes. My complaint is that the actual bound is stricter than this, band read1(n) will never return more than min(n, bufsize) bytes. To me, this seems unnecessary and counterintuitive. Why am I restricted by the buffer size if the underlying raw device could provide the requested amount with one call? Looking at the source, this restriction seems caused by read1() calling peek(). I think it would be straightforward to just delegate a read1(n) call to raw stream's read(n) method. This would improve performance, and also make the documentation more accurate. Did I miss something? Best, Nikolaus ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18524> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
