RetroSearch Browse

Tue Nov 21 17:10:03 CET 2006 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-November/069998.html

OK, so let's reject the change.

On 11/21/06, Armin Rigo <arigo at tunes.org> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 06:56:20AM +0100, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> > Right: socket._fileobject will invoke recv as many times as
> > necessary to read the requested amount of data. I was somehow
> > assuming that it maps read() to read(2), which, in turn, would
> > directly map to recv(2), which could return less data.
> >
> > So it's a semantic change only for the last block.
>
> That means that it would be rather pointless to make the change, right?
> The original poster's motivation is to get accurate progress during the
> transfer - but he missed that he already gets that.
>
> The proposed change only appears to be relevant together with a
> hypothetical rewrite of the underlying code, one that would use recv()
> instead of read().
>
>
> A bientot,
>
> Armin
>

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-November/069998.html below:

[Python-Dev] Passing actual read size to urllib reporthook