On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:51:25 -0700, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Farshid Lashkari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was just curious as to why cStringIO objects don't implement the
buffer interface. cStringIO objects seem similar to string and array
objects, and those support the buffer protocol. Is there a reason
against allowing cStringIO to support at least the read buffer
interface, or is just that nobody has considered it until now?
Well, for one, it would mean you could no longer exchange a StringIO
instance for a cStringIO instance.
It would probably only mean that there is one further incompatibility
between cStringIO and StringIO - you already can't exchange them in a
number of cases. They handle unicode differently, they have different
methods, etc.
Maybe making them diverge even further is a step in the wrong direction,
though.
Also, what's the compelling use case you're thinking of?
I'm not sure what use-case Farshid Lashkari had. For Twisted, it has
been considered as a way to reduce peak memory usage (by reducing the
need for memory copying, which also speeds things up). I'm not sure
if anyone has benchmarked this yet, so I don't know if it's a real win
or not. I think Thomas Hervé has a patch to cStringIO which implements
the feature, though.
For reference, <http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/3188>.
This isn't high on my priority list, but I thought I'd point out the
potential use-case.
Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________
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
