Martin v. Löwis added the comment: > I didn't even notice the readinto implementation was missing. But I > agree, if we keep readinto1(), we should also add readinto(). [...] > Maybe this is why we seem to be talking past each other :-). I did not > look or work on readinto at all. All I noticed is that there is a read1, > but no readinto1. So I implemented a readinto1 as well as I could.
I see. It's not actually true that there is no readinto - it's inherited from the base class. I think it is more important that the implementation is consistent than that it is performant (but achieving both should be possible). Whether or not _pyio needs to be performant, I don't know. Having it consistent with _io would be desirable, but might not be possible. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
