On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> wrote: >>> For sizes below 128, one byte of length. For sizes 128-16383, two bytes. And >>> so on. Compact yet unbounded. >> >> [...] >> >> It's generally a lot faster to do a read(2) than a loop with any >> number of read(1), and you get some kind of bound on your allocations. >> Whether that's important to you or not is another question, but >> certainly your chosen encoding is a good way of allowing arbitrary >> integer values. > > You can read a full buffer even if you have a variable-length length > encoding.
Not sure what you mean there. Unless you can absolutely guarantee that you didn't read too much, or can absolutely guarantee that your buffering function will be the ONLY way anything reads from the socket, buffering is a problem. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
