Martin Panter added the comment: For what it’s worth, it would be better if compressed streams did limit the amount of data they decompressed, so that they are not susceptible to decompression bombs; see Issue 15955. But having a flexible-sized buffer could be useful in other cases.
I haven’t looked closely at the code, but I wonder if there is much difference from the existing BufferedReader. Perhaps just that the underlying raw stream in this case can deliver data in arbitrary-sized chunks, but BufferedReader expects its raw stream to deliver data in limited-sized chunks? If you exposed the buffer it could be useful to do many things more efficiently: * readline() with custom newline or end-of-record codes, solving Issue 1152248, Issue 17083 * scan the buffer using string operations or regular expressions etc, e.g. to skip whitespace, read a run of unescaped symbols * tentatively read data to see if a keyword is present, but roll back if the data doesn’t match the keyword ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue19051> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
