On Feb 15, 2006, at 20:06, Greg Ewing wrote: > Barry Warsaw wrote: > >> If we go with two functions, I'd much rather hang them off of the >> file >> type object then add two new builtins. I really do think >> file.bytes() >> and file.text() (a.k.a. open.bytes() and open.text()) is better than >> opentext() or openbytes(). > > I'm worried about feeping creaturism of the file type > here. To my mind, the file type already has too many > features, and this hinders code that wants to define > its own file-like objects. > > In 3.0 I'd like to see the file type reduced to having > as simple an interface as possible (basically just > read/write) and all other stuff (readlines, text codecs, > etc.) implemented as wrappers around it.
I'd like to put my 2 cents in a agree with Greg here. Implementing a "complete" file-like object has come to be something of a pain. Perhaps we can do something akin to UserDict -- perhaps UserTextFile and UserBinaryFile? It would be nice if it could handle the default implementation of everything but read and write. Thanks, -Shane _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
