> We have a very small extension function which creates writeable buffer > objects using the buffer type C-API. That's how the buffer API was supposed to be used. > We also wrap suitable type instances with a "buffer object wrapper". > I'm slowly gathering that this is unsafe. :-( I don't understand what you say, but I believe you. > >Maybe instead of the buffer() function/type, there should be a way to > >allocate raw memory? > Yes. It would also be nice to be able to: > > 1. Know (at the python level) that a type supports the buffer C-API. Good idea. (I guess right now you can see if calling buffer() with an instance as argument works. :-) > 2. Copy bytes from one buffer to another (writeable buffer). Maybe you would like to work on a requirements gathering for a memory object? --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