On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Random832 <random...@fastmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018, at 05:46, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> If you view them as comparable to subprocess pipes, then it can be >> surprising that they're not iterable when using a line-oriented >> protocol. >> >> If you instead view them as comparable to socket connections, then the >> lack of iteration support seems equally reasonable. > > Sockets are files - there's no fundamental reason a stream socket using a > line-oriented protocol (which is a common enough case), or a datagram socket, > shouldn't be iterable. Why aren't they? Making sockets iterable would be a > separate discussion, but I don't think this is necessarily an argument. >
Only in POSIX. On other platforms, sockets are most definitely NOT files. And datagram sockets don't really make sense to iterate over. Part of the problem with even POSIX stream sockets (either TCP or Unix domain) is what you do when there's nothing to read. Do you block, waiting for a line? Do you raise StopIteration and then subsequently become un-finished again (which, according to Python semantics, is a broken iterator)? Do you yield a special value that says "no data yet but more maybe later"?? Blocking is the only one that makes sense, and that only if you run two threads, one for reading and one for writing. (Unless you're using a unidirectional socket, basically a TCP-enabled or filesystem-named pipe. Far from common.) ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
