On 2021-01-19, Alan Gauld via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote: > On 18/01/2021 22:14, Random832 wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021, at 13:36, Alan Gauld via Python-list wrote: >>> That could make a big difference, the putp() function specifically >>> states that it writes to stdout. >> >> I think there is a reasonable argument that this is a deficiency of >> the curses module. >> >> I think that the curses module should .. >> B) expose a version of putp that uses pthon's stdout[.buffer].write >> rather than C's putchar. > > To be fair that's a limitation of the C curses library. putp() is a > wrapper around tputs() even there, and you can't change what it does. > The gap in the curses module is that it doesn't offer the tputs() > option as an alternative.
If the curses module provided a tputs binding, then the user could write a useful putp(), or better yet a function that just does the padding and returns a new bytestring. > I've been using curses (C and python) for nearly 30 years and > this is the first time I've ever used the tiXXX functions, and it > was mainly just out of curiosity rather than real need. Same here. -- Grant -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
