On 16Jun2009 02:18, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: >> My itch is that peek() _feels_ like it should be "look into the buffer" >> but actually can block and/or change the buffer. >> > Can block, but not if you don't want it too. You might just want to see > what, if anything, is currently available, up to n bytes.
Am I missing something? In the face of an _empty_ buffer (which I can't tell from outside) how do I prevent peek() blocking? More generally, if I go peek(n) and if n > bytes_in_buffer_right_now and the raw stream would block if a raw read is done? My concerns would go away if I could probe the buffer content size; then I could ensure peek(n) chose n <= the content size. If that's not enough, my problem - I can choose to read-and-block or go away and come back later. -- Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ If all around you is darkness and you feel you're contending in vain, then the light at the end of the tunnel is the front of an oncoming train. _______________________________________________ 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
