Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: Hi!
that sounds > like a behavior change. I'd be fine with removing it for the 3.1/2.7 version of > this code (though I hope people will be using the C implementation instead). Well, either it's supported and it will have to go through a deprecation phase, or it's unsupported and it can be ripped out right now... I don't think it should be supported at all, given that the semantics of writing an iterable of ints are totally non-obvious. Reading both the PEP and the docstrings in io.py, I only see mentions of "bytes" and "buffer", not of an iterable of ints. Perhaps Guido should pronounce. (do you know of any code relying on this behaviour? the C version obviously does not support it and all regression tests pass fine, except for an SSL bug I filed) http://codereview.appspot.com/12470 ---------- nosy: +pitrou title: io.BufferedWriter does not observe buffer size limits -> make io.BufferedWriter observe max_buffer_size limits _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4428> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
