Guido van Rossum python.org> writes:
>
> However, the semantics of interleaving
> reads and writes, with and without seek calls in between, should be
> well-defined and correct/useful, so that it behaves the same
> regardless of the buffer size.
Yes, the goal is to have reasonably intuitive, and
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>>> « Q: Do we want to mandate in the specification that switching between
>>> reading
>>> and writing on a read-write object implies a .flush()? Or is that an
>>> implementation convenience that users should not rely o
Guido van Rossum wrote:
« Q: Do we want to mandate in the specification that switching between reading
and writing on a read-write object implies a .flush()? Or is that an
implementation convenience that users should not rely on? »
Is it ok if I assume that the answer is "it is an implementatio
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Amaury (mainly) and I are rewriting the IO stack in C,
Very cool!
> and there is a small
> thing in PEP 3116 about the BufferedRandom object that I'd like to clarify:
>
> « Q: Do we want to mandate in the specification that switching betwe
