Cameron Simpson wrote:
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.
I was thinking along the lines of:
def peek(self, size=None, block=True)
If 'block' is True then return 'size' bytes, unless the end of the
file/stream is reached; if 'block' is False then return up to 'size'
bytes, without blocking. The blocking form might impose a limit to how
much can be peeked (the maximum size of the buffer), or it might enlarge
the buffer as necessary.
_______________________________________________
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
