Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > The trade-off of accommodating a small buffer size (by buffering > behind the scenes anyways) would likely slow the more common cases > which use a decent buffer size. I am wondering if an effort to > accommodate both uses would be appropriate. Possibly by not > double-buffering if readinto(b): len(b) > buffer_size/2 (arbitrary but > seems feasible), and copying directly as the patch does now. > Otherwise, fill the buffer up for subsequent reads and copy len(b) to > user buffer. There is probably a good equilibrium for when it makes > more/less sense to bypass the internal buffer.
Yes, it sounds reasonable. I think the best thing to do is to experiment and run some measurements. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9971> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
