On 21Sep2015 18:07, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
I'm using buffered io streams, so that layer will be reading in chunks. Pulling
things from that buffer with fp.read(1) is cheap enough for my use.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
