| msg115208 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) *  |
Date: 2010-08-30 11:54 |
| This is an improvement patch for the :mod:`io` documentation. It adds an user-friendly overview, and makes a couple of other fixes/improvements. There's a problem where I want to make a link to a glossary term while using the plural form ("abstract base classes"), and it doesn't work. Can someone help me? |
|
|
| msg115211 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2010-08-30 12:49 |
| Ok, committed in r84357 (py3k) and r84358 (3.1). Backporting to 2.7 would be too much work. |
|
|
| msg115212 - (view) |
Author: Skip Montanaro (skip.montanaro) *  |
Date: 2010-08-30 13:27 |
| A couple wording comments: "All streams are careful about the type of data you give to them" would read better as "All streams accept specific types of data". "The default mode is ``'r'`` (open for reading text, synonym of ``'rt'``)". I liked the original wording better. Finally, not specific to this change, but I wonder if rather than having distinct io.StringIO and io.BytesIO classes it would be better to have a single io.MemoryIO class which takes mode arguments just like io.FileIO? The correspondence between file-based and memory- based i/o would be more one-to-one. Such a class could be added without breaking existing code by using the StringIO and BytesIO classes as the back-end for a MemoryIO class. |
|
|
| msg115213 - (view) |
Author: Benjamin Peterson (benjamin.peterson) * |
Date: 2010-08-30 13:32 |
| 2010/8/30 Skip Montanaro <report@bugs.python.org>: > > Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> added the comment: > > A couple wording comments: > > "All streams are careful about the type of data you give to them" > would read better as "All streams accept specific types of data". > > "The default mode is ``'r'`` (open for reading text, synonym of > ``'rt'``)". I liked the original wording better. Feel free to change it; it's been committed. > > Finally, not specific to this change, but I wonder if rather than > having distinct io.StringIO and io.BytesIO classes it would be better > to have a single io.MemoryIO class which takes mode arguments just > like io.FileIO? The correspondence between file-based and memory- > based i/o would be more one-to-one. Such a class could be added > without breaking existing code by using the StringIO and BytesIO > classes as the back-end for a MemoryIO class. What advantage would that have? |
|
|
| msg115214 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2010-08-30 13:38 |
| > "The default mode is ``'r'`` (open for reading text, synonym of > ``'rt'``)". I liked the original wording better. Well, people use "r" in practice, and "rt" is a somewhat rarer alternative. We could drop the "synonym..." part entirely. |
|
|
| msg115216 - (view) |
Author: Skip Montanaro (skip.montanaro) * |
Date: 2010-08-30 14:13 |
| >> Finally, not specific to this change, but I wonder if rather than >> having distinct io.StringIO and io.BytesIO classes it would be better >> to have a single io.MemoryIO class which takes mode arguments just >> like io.FileIO? Â The correspondence between file-based and memory- >> based i/o would be more one-to-one. Â Such a class could be added >> without breaking existing code by using the StringIO and BytesIO >> classes as the back-end for a MemoryIO class. Benjamin> What advantage would that have? File I/O and memory I/O would have more uniform in their APIs and thus be easier to document, describe and use. Currently, one class is used to do file I/O. The type of I/O done is controlled by the mode and buffering flags. Two distinct classes are used to do memory I/O. If someone wanted to select between file and memory I/O at runtime it wouldn't be possible to just swap the class using the current code. Skip |
|
|
| msg115217 - (view) |
Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * |
Date: 2010-08-30 14:23 |
| > File I/O and memory I/O would have more uniform in their APIs and thus be > easier to document, describe and use. Currently, one class is used to do > file I/O. That's wrong. Various classes are used for file I/O: FileIO, Buffered{Reader,Writer,Random}, TextIOWrapper. > If someone wanted to select between file and memory I/O at runtime it > wouldn't be possible to just swap the class using the current code. Why would you swap the class since the constructor arguments would be different anyway? |
|
|