[python-checkins] > >> * Added socket.recv_buf() and socket.recvfrom_buf() methods, that > >> use the buffer > >> protocol (send and sendto already did). > >> > >> * Added struct.pack_to(), that is the corresponding buffer > >> compatible method to > >> unpack_from().
[Guido] > > Hm... The file object has a similar method readinto(). Perhaps the > > methods introduced here could follow that lead instead of using two > > different new naming conventions? On 5/27/06, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (speaking specifically about struct and not socket) > > pack_to and unpack_from are named as such because they work with objects > that support the buffer API (not file-like-objects). I couldn't find any > existing convention for objects that manipulate buffers in such a way. Actually, <fileobject>.readinto(<bufferobject>) is the convention I started long ago (at the time the buffer was introduced. > If there is an existing convention then I'd be happy to rename these. > > "readinto" seems to imply that some kind of position is being > incremented. No -- it's like read() but instead of returning a new object it reads "into" an object you pass. > Grammatically it only works if it's implemented on all buffer > objects, but > in this case it's implemented on the Struct type. It looks like <structobject>.pack_to(<bufferobject>, <other args>) is similar to <fileobject>.readinto(<bufferobject>) in that the buffer object receives the result of packing / reading. (Files don't have a writefrom() method because write() can be polymorphic. read() can't be due to the asymmetry in the API. I guess struct objects are different.) -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
