On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 1:34:03 PM Daniel Holth <dholth at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote: > > Overall I like this and don't see any reason not to accept it, so +1. I > do > > have a couple comments/questions on the module API, though. > > > > On Mon Feb 23 2015 at 12:45:28 PM Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> <SNIP> > >> > >> > >> ``set_interpreter(archive, new_archive, interpreter=None)`` > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >> > >> Modifies the *archive*'s shebang line to contain the specified > >> interpreter, and writes the updated archive to *new_archive*. If the > >> *interpreter* is ``None``, removes the shebang line. > > > > > > Should new_archive default to None to allow for in-place editing? > > > > -Brett > > That would be cool but more work. Unless the length of the new shebang > is <= the old one, the zip file contents have to be moved out of the > way. > Couldn't you just keep it in memory as bytes and then write directly over the file? I realize that's a bit wasteful memory-wise but it is possible. The docs could mention the memory cost is something to watch out for when doing an in-place replacement. Heck the code could even make it an io.BytesIO instance so the rest of the code doesn't have to care about this special case. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150223/2b058fba/attachment.html>
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