On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 10:21:08AM +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Peter Funk wrote: > > 'shutil.copyfile' however takes filenames as arguments and contains > > the loop sketched above as inline code. I see two possibilities: > > 1. It would be easy to skip the open and close operations in > > 'shutil.copyfile', if either 'src' or 'dst' are already open > > file objects instead of strings. > > -0: Too much Perl-like DWIM magic > > > 2. Or you factor out the copy loop operation above and rename it into > > 'copycontent' or 'copybytes' or whatever. > > Of course it should be factored out: but the question remains, why shell > utils? Do you really think copybytes belongs there? Add shutil.copyfileob(src_file_ob, dst_file_ob). shutil.copyfile() can call it after opening the files. Does that function make absolute sense there? Tough question. It sure happens to work well, considered the dependent function copyfile(). I imagine there are a bazillion functions that could be re-factored. No sense getting overly concerned. Put the bugger in shutil for now. Step two: propose a new organization. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4