Carl Banks wrote: > Only one concern: > > > typedef int (*getbufferproc)(PyObject *obj, struct bufferinfo > *view) > > > I'd like to see it accept a flags argument over what kind of buffer > it's allowed to return. I'd rather not burden the user to check all > the entries in bufferinfo to make sure it doesn't get something > unexpected. Yes, I agree. We had something like that at one point. > > I imagine most uses of buffer protocol would be for direct, > one-dimensional arrays of bytes with no striding. It's not clear > whether read-only or read-write should be the least common > denominator, so require at least one of these flags: > > Py_BUF_READONLY > Py_PUF_READWRITE > > Then allow any of these flags to allow more complex access: > > Py_BUF_MULTIDIM - allows strided and multidimensional arrays > Py_BUF_INDIRECT - allows indirect buffers (implies Py_BUF_MULTIDIM) > > An object is allowed to return a simpler array than requested, but not > more complex. If you allow indirect buffers, you might still get a > one-dimensional array of bytes. > > > Other than that, I would add a note about the other things considered > and rejected (the old prototype for getbufferproc, the delegated > buffer object). List whether to backport the buffer protocol to 2.6 > as an open question.
Thanks for the suggestions. > > Then submit it as a real PEP. I believe this idea has run its course > as PEP XXX and needs a real number. How does one do that. Who assigns the number? I thought I "had" submitted it as a real PEP. -Travis _______________________________________________ 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
