On Jan 9, 2018 04:12, "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? Supporting line iteration on sockets would require adding a whole buffering layer, which would be a huge change in semantics. Also, due to the way the BSD socket API works, stream and datagram sockets are the same Python type, so which one would socket.__next__ assume? (Plus datagrams are a bit messy anyway; you need to know the protocol's max size before you can call recv.) I know this was maybe a rhetorical question, but this particular case does have an answer beyond "we never did it that way before" :-). -n
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
