A RetroSearch Logo

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

Search Query:

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-February/086264.html below:

[Python-Dev] IO implementation: in C and Python?

[Python-Dev] IO implementation: in C and Python? [Python-Dev] IO implementation: in C and Python?Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Fri Feb 20 16:42:17 CET 2009
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
> Georg Brandl <g.brandl <at> gmx.net> writes:
>>
>> I just hope everyone updates both versions when making changes to IO.
>
> My proposal is just organizational, it is neutral in terms of whether or not the
> Python version is correctly maintained.

I worry that with your proposal people are once again going to import
the pure Python version where they shouldn't. Maybe _pyio.py would
work though?

> We can hope that the IO lib *semantics* won't change too much in the future
> (although there is an IMO legitimate request for a setblocking() method:
> http://bugs.python.org/issue949667). On the other hand, I don't expect anyone to
> willingly use the Python version if the C version is available.

Hoping that modules won't evolve is futile. The concern for divergence
is real. Unit-testing both with the same tests might be the solution.

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list

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