Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > Instead, every call must go through PyObject_CallMethod, and the file > objects only handle `PyBytes` and `PyByteArray` which are cumbersome > and inefficient to use in extension modules.
Because of the generic nature of the 3.x I/O stack, even shortcuts such as the proposed PyFile_Write will still have to use PyObject_CallMethod(obj, "write", ...) under the hood. As for the types handled by file objects, you should be able to use a PyMemoryViewObject, which allows you to create a memory buffer without copying it (if that's what you're after). You can also pass your own objects provided they support the new buffer API: http://docs.python.org/dev/c-api/buffer.html#bufferobjects (I agree this documentation is not very well written, though) So, bottom line, we could create a set of PyFile_* wrappers (or, rather, PyStream_*), but they wouldn't be much more efficient that what you can write by hand. Do you still think it's worth it? If so, I think you should float the idea on python-dev (the mailing-list). ---------- nosy: +pitrou _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9838> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
