Nikolaus Rath added the comment: (Rietveld is giving me errors, so I'm replying here)
On 2014/04/13 02:22:23, loewis wrote: >>> Again, why a separate implementation here? >> >> For performance reasons. Relying on the default implementation >> would fall back to using read1(), which means a new bytes object >> is created first. > > Hmm. > a) if performance was relevant, it should apply to readinto() as well. I didn't even notice the readinto implementation was missing. But I agree, if we keep readinto1(), we should also add readinto(). > b) if the code is duplicated for performance only, a comment should > state that explicitly. I'm very sorry, but I still don't see which code in readinto1() is duplicate. You don't mean duplicate between io and _pyio, do you? > c) to justify a performance argument, you should really provide hard > numbers that demonstrate a performance gain justifying the code > duplication. I posted a small benchmark to the issue tracker. Personally, I think the more important argument is to keep the Python and C implementations similar. It's really nice if you can look at _pyio to find out at least roughly what happens in io. (Yes, I did put performance first in my last reply, but only because I thought you were asking about readinto1 in general, rather than the additional Python implementation in _pyio.) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20578> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
