> Not sure I completely agree, but I'm not trying to pick a fight, either. > I just wish the following bit from the docs was true, whether pickle or > cPickle were used, whether the object was first pickled inside some > container and later pickled on its own, whether the instance was a > new-style class or an old-style class, etc.: > > <quote> > It is possible to make multiple calls to the dump() method of the same > Pickler instance. These must then be matched to the same number of > calls to the load() method of the corresponding Unpickler instance. If > the same object is pickled by multiple dump() calls, the load() will > all yield references to the same object. > </quote> > > The fact that I'm no longer sure whether I'll get back a reference to a > previously pickle instance or not calls into question whether pickling > can be the foundation for a reliable Python persistence system. I can't > help but express my disappointment. Was I really expecting too much > from pickle/cPickle? Probably. I have to admit that the "multiple calls to dump()" feature is not often used; maybe it should be deprecated so we don't make promises we can't fulfill. E.g. Zope never uses this. > In any case, I've submitted the following documentation bug report on > SF: > > [ 655802 ] cPickle not always same as pickle You could help by submitting a doc patch that satisfies your desire for more clear and honest docs. If you don't know LaTeX, that doesn't matter; just pretend it's plain text and somebody will fix up the markup, as long as you provide the new words. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
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