| msg63928 - (view) |
Author: Travis Oliphant (teoliphant) *  |
Date: 2008-03-18 15:59 |
| The memoryview object in Python 3.0 needs to be finished. There are a few methods that are not complete. In particular, the __getitem__ and __setitem__ functionality needs to be finished as well as the tolist() method. |
|
|
| msg67429 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2008-05-27 20:31 |
| Raising priority. |
|
|
| msg70406 - (view) |
Author: Stefan Behnel (scoder) * |
Date: 2008-07-29 17:46 |
| Also, the implementation does not follow the revised buffer PEP 3118. It still calls get/releasebuffer(NULL) to acquire a lock, which is no longer allowed by the buffer protocol. I think this should become a release blocker for the last beta. |
|
|
| msg70407 - (view) |
Author: Georg Brandl (georg.brandl) * |
Date: 2008-07-29 18:16 |
| I agree, buffer interface should be completed before going into rc phase. |
|
|
| msg71165 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-15 09:38 |
| See also #3560. |
|
|
| msg71412 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 12:39 |
| Here is a preliminary patch implementing slices with getitem, adding a bunch of tests, and fixing a few problems. As stated elsewhere I only bother to test with simple byte buffers. The semantics of other types of buffers are too fuzzy for me. |
|
|
| msg71415 - (view) |
Author: Benjamin Peterson (benjamin.peterson) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 13:08 |
| Antoine, if this is a "cleanup", perhaps you could fix #3101 while you're at it. |
|
|
| msg71419 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 14:24 |
| Here is another patch with setitem too (integers and slices supported), and further tests. |
|
|
| msg71423 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 15:16 |
| This patch fixes a crash in the codecs module. However, memoryview should also support comparisons (just == and !=) with bytes/bytearray objects (or any buffer-enabled objects), otherwise utf-8-sig produces wrong values (and there are no tests for it). |
|
|
| msg71428 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 15:38 |
| Here is a patch to support comparisons of memoryview objects with other objects offering the buffer interface. Two objects are equal if their buffers have the same characteristics and compare equal bytewise. It also improves the test in test_codecs.py, ensuring the problem has been fixed. |
|
|
| msg71430 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 15:45 |
| Adding some comparison tests. |
|
|
| msg71467 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 19:22 |
| This patch changes all bytearray results (in indexing, tobytes()) to bytes, and adds the implementation the tolist(). Note: the tolist() implementation only handles one-dimensional byte buffers. It will have to be re-written using the struct module! But at least once that patch applied, I think we may drop down this bug to critical. |
|
|
| msg71469 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 19:26 |
| Please review at http://codereview.appspot.com/3004 |
|
|
| msg71493 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-19 22:11 |
| Committed in r65886 after review from Benjamin and some small fixes. I'm downgrading this to critical for the remains of the memoryview API (support for more format types, multi-dimensional objects...). Perhaps those remainings will have to wait for 3.1. |
|
|
| msg71736 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-22 09:51 |
| Guido, do we retarget the rest of this to 3.1? It sounds more reasonable to me. |
|
|
| msg71880 - (view) |
Author: Travis Oliphant (teoliphant) * |
Date: 2008-08-24 21:36 |
| It would have been nice to finish the memoryview object for 3.0, but I ran into time constraints. The pieces that are left can be pushed to 3.1 |
|
|
| msg71881 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2008-08-24 21:37 |
| Great. It would be nice if you could at least do a quick review what has been committed though. |
|
|
| msg123887 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2010-12-13 18:01 |
| It looks to me like the critical parts of this have been done, so I'm downgrading the priority. |
|
|
| msg154324 - (view) |
Author: Stefan Krah (skrah) * |
Date: 2012-02-26 10:42 |
| I think this issue is now superseded by #10181 and #3132. |
|
|