Guido van Rossum wrote: >>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. > I meant we call PyBuffer_FromReadWriteObject and the resulting buffer lives longer than the extension function call that created it. I have heard that it is possible for the original object to "move" leaving the buffer object pointer to it dangling. > > >>>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 > Sure. I'd be willing to poll comp.lang.python (python-list?) and collate the results of any discussion that ensues. Is that what you had in mind? > > >--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) > > >_______________________________________________ >Python-Dev mailing list >Python-Dev@python.org >http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Todd
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