> I recently submitted a (really tiny) patch to allow the buffer() builtin to > return a read/write PyBufferObject when possible. Mostly this was just to > get my feet wet on the patch submission process, but I also think it is the > correct behavior (am I wrong about this?). Being new at this, I don't > know: Am I supposed to find a committer to champion my patch? If you feel that your patch isn't paid enough attention, please do! :-) > Also... Several weeks ago, I brought up the suggestion that arraymodule.c > arrays should be able to pickle directly and efficiently. I've since found > out that the topic of arrays is a complicated one, and now I'm wondering if > anyone else thinks that buffer objects should pickle. > > I look at buffers as mutable byte-strings. Having buffers pickle/unpickle > (without a temporary copy) would avoid most of the questions about data > types/sizes, endian-ness, ..., while allowing things which built on top of > buffers (array modules for instance) to pickle efficiently. Are you referring to the buffer object or the buffer interface? The buffer interface doesn't define an object type, it defines a particular way to look at an object (just like the numeric, sequence and mapping interfaces). There's no point in prescribing a pickle format for it. The buffer object was a mistake. If you want an efficient way of reading/writing memory buffers, look at the support for the buffer interface of the file readinto and write methods. You already can read and write arrays without copying. --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