Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> writes: > Seems to me the natural thing to do would be to add > "get_data_filename" and "get_index_filename" methods (or something > similar) to the underlying modules (dbhash, bsddb, dbm, etc) and > expose them through anydbm. I see. So you agree that with the current implementation, there isn't a reliable way to do what I'm trying to do with DBM? > It's too late for 2.2, but I suspect if you implemented something > and method name(s) could be settled on it would make it into CVS > early in the 2.3 cycle. This seems like a small enough change that > you just file a bug report on SourceForge with the proposal and add > an implementation when you have something workable. I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to this, but I'll put it on my TODO list. In the meantime, I think I'll just support the auto regeneration feature I mentioned with CDB[1] instead of DBM since its file interface is consistent across platforms. Footnotes: 1. python-cdb extension module (http://pilcrow.madison.wi.us/) -- (TMDA - http://tmda.sourceforge.net) (Python-based SPAM reduction system)
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