En Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:54:47 -0300, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Gary Herron wrote: > >> Certainly there's are cases where xreadlines or read(bytecount) are >> reasonable, but only if the total pages size is *very* large. But for >> most web pages, you guys are just nit-picking (or showing off) to >> suggest that the full read implemented by readlines is wasteful. >> Moreover, the original problem was with sockets -- which don't have >> xreadlines. That seems to be a method on regular file objects. >> > There is absolutely no reason to read the entire file into memory (which > is what you're doing) before processing it. This is a good example of > the principle of there is one obvious right way to do it -- and it isn't > to read the whole thing in first for no reason whatsoever other than to > avoid an `x`. The problem is -and you appear not to have noticed that- that the object returned by urlopen does NOT have a xreadlines() method; and even if it had, a lot of pages don't contain any '\n' so using xreadlines would read the whole page in memory anyway. Python 2.2 (the version that the OP is using) did include a xreadlines module (now defunct) but on this case it is painfully slooooooooooooow - perhaps it tries to read the source one character at a time. So the best way would be to use (as Paul Rubin already said): for line in iter(lambda: f.read(4096), ''): print line -- Gabriel Genellina -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
