Feature Requests item #818006, was opened at 2003-10-05 02:30 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by gward You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=818006&group_id=5470
Category: Extension Modules Group: None Status: Closed Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Dave Cinege (dcinege) Assigned to: Greg Ward (gward) Summary: ossaudiodev object does not support common readonly attrs Initial Comment: fin = ossaudiodev.open(dspfile, 'r') if fin.closed == True: AttributeError: closed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Greg Ward (gward) Date: 2005-03-08 19:56 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=14422 Oops: since this is a new feature, I should not have added it on the 2.4 branch. This will only be in Python 2.5, not 2.4.1. Reverted changes in: Modules/ossaudiodev.c rev 1.35.4.2 Lib/test/test_ossaudiodev.py rev 1.8.10.2 Doc/lib/libossaudiodev.tex rev 1.12.4.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy) Date: 2005-03-07 22:55 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=593130 According to my dictionary, while should can be the past tense of shall, it is also a helper (auxiliary) word, as in 'should be' that can have various shades of meaning: obligation, propriety, expectation, likelihood, and others similar to would. I personally understand it as desired and proper, in between may and must. I also believe that the standard for acceptance of library submissions has risen in the years since this module went in. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Ward (gward) Date: 2005-03-07 21:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=14422 If you wish to dispute the meaning of "should", I can only refer you to RFC 2119. I'm no grammarian, but this RFC is quite explicit that "should" != "shall", which certainly agrees with my understanding of English. If you think this should be formally addressed by Python documentation standards, you should probably post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suspect you'll be met with a wall of indifference, but you never know. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Cinege (dcinege) Date: 2005-03-06 21:36 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=314434 'As the previous commenter pointed out, "should" is not mandatory. ' Don't want to nit-pick...but in common usage and especially legalese (which the world is unfortuntaly infected with, that being laws) 'shall' is interperted to mean an absolute. Should, the past tense of 'shall' , therefor inherits the definition of shall...which is: 1 archaic a : will have to : MUST b : will be able to : CAN 2 a -- used to express a command or exhortation <you shall go> b -- used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory Thus, I think it's a poor idea that the use of 'should', or 'shall', should not imply what is mandatory. After all they are a synonym for 'must'! If the language 'may be' was used instead of 'should be' I would not have reported this as a bug. I think as an issue of documentation policy, this should be...uhmmm...I mean...must be changed. : ) I don't know where I would raise this issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Ward (gward) Date: 2005-03-06 20:41 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=14422 For the record, I consider this an enhancement, not a bug fix. As the previous commenter pointed out, "should" is not mandatory. But it's a useful feature, and I have no objection to adding it on a stable branch. So I've checked it in on 2.4: Modules/ossaudiodev.c rev 1.35.4.1 Lib/test/test_ossaudiodev.py rev 1.8.10.1 Doc/lib/libossaudiodev.tex rev 1.12.4.2 Lib/test/output/test_ossaudiodev rev 1.2.12.1 and merged to the trunk: Modules/ossaudiodev.c rev 1.36 Lib/test/test_ossaudiodev.py rev 1.9 Doc/lib/libossaudiodev.tex rev 1.14 Lib/test/output/test_ossaudiodev rev 1.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy) Date: 2005-03-05 15:48 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=593130 I am not sure who your last comment is aimed at. As near as I can tell, Greg merely updated the group to Py2.4, implying that this issue is still relevant. In Pythonese, should is advisory; only must is mandatory. So I see this as a request for a pre-approved enhancement. Since ossaudiodevice directly wraps an OS open file descripter, rather than a Python file object, the patch is more than a triviality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Cinege (dcinege) Date: 2005-03-05 13:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=314434 That was the point of the bug report. It has no closed or other file-like attributes. According the python docs then and current: 'File objects also offer a number of other interesting attributes. These are not required for file-like objects, but should be implemented if they make sense for the particular object. ' I take that to mean these attributes are mandatory, unless it does not make sense to implement them. In the case of file-like Audio Device Objects, they make sense, and thus should be there. Either this statement of file-like object policy is a bug, or the lack of such attributes in Audio Device Objects is a bug. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dave Cinege (dcinege) Date: 2003-10-05 16:32 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=314434 Please see: http://python.org/doc/current/lib/bltin-file-objects.html """ File objects also offer a number of other interesting attributes. These are not required for file-like objects, but should be implemented if they make sense for the particular object. "" "Should be" when they "make sense" is my rational for reporting this as a bug. I found this by trying to convert existing code from a normal open of /dev/dsp to ossaudiodev.open(), that IMO "should" have worked. : P Other attributes that "should be" implemented (mode and name) because they "make sense" may also be missing...I haven't checked. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy) Date: 2003-10-05 16:16 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=593130 >From Lib Ref 14.11 ossaudiodev "open( [device, ]mode) Open an audio device and return an OSS audio device object. " Checking http://python.org/doc/current/lib/ossaudio-device- objects.html 14.11.1 Audio Device Objects I can find no mention of closed attribute or indeed of any attributes other than methods. Why were you expecting such? If report is a mistake, please close. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=818006&group_id=5470 _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
