Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
>
> All in all I think we should change this before it's too late; it will
> affect a very small number of apps (perhaps none?), but I would rather
> have the right semantics in the future. Also, it's trivial to write
> code that doesn't care (in fact code run
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:24:52 -0700, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
> [truncate()]
>>
>> What compatibility, though?
>
> Compatibility accross the 3.x line.
Well, in this case, maybe compatibility with 2.x is more important --
this isn't somethi
Antoine Pitrou a écrit :
Hello,
So here is the proposed semantic, which matches established conventions:
*IOBase.truncate(n: int = None) -> int*
[...]
I still don't think there is a sufficient benefit in breaking
compatibility. If you want the file pointer to remain the same, you ca
Le Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:24:52 -0700, Guido van Rossum a écrit :
[truncate()]
>
> What compatibility, though?
Compatibility accross the 3.x line.
> f.truncate() behaves different in 2.x than
> in 3.x, and in 2.x it seems to match the POSIX semantics (i.e. the seek
> position is unchanged even thou
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> So here is the proposed semantic, which matches established conventions:
>>
>> *IOBase.truncate(n: int = None) -> int*
> [...]
>
> I still don't think there is a sufficient benefit in breaking
> compatibility. If you want the file pointer t
Pascal Chambon wrote:
Hello
Below is a corrected version of the PEP update, adding the start/end
indexes proposition and fixing functions signatures. Does anyone
disagree with these specifications ? Or can we consider it as a target
for the next versions of the io module ?
I would have no pro
Hello,
> So here is the proposed semantic, which matches established conventions:
>
> *IOBase.truncate(n: int = None) -> int*
[...]
I still don't think there is a sufficient benefit in breaking
compatibility. If you want the file pointer to remain the same, you can
save it first and restore i
Hello
Below is a corrected version of the PEP update, adding the start/end
indexes proposition and fixing functions signatures. Does anyone
disagree with these specifications ? Or can we consider it as a target
for the next versions of the io module ?
I would have no problem to implement this
