Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bpo-30718: Add information about text buffering #32351

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Copy link
Contributor

@slateny slateny commented Apr 6, 2022

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added the docs label Apr 6, 2022
in bytes of a fixed-size chunk buffer. Note that specifying a buffer size this
way does not apply for files opened in text mode, where
Copy link
Member

@methane methane Apr 7, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"does not apply" is misleading because it is applied to underlying buffered random.

How about: "applies for binary buffered I/O, but TextIOWrapper would have another buffering."

Copy link
Contributor Author

@slateny slateny Apr 10, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, for the latter part would it be possible to say instead "..., but TextIOWrapper (i.e., files opened with mode='r+') would have another buffering"? I feel that the issue was brought up as the buffering parameter is misleading for text mode, so saying TextIOWrapper alone might not be explicit enough

Copy link
Member

@methane methane Apr 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It looks good to me.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@slateny slateny Apr 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

'It' referring to the original suggested change or the one with mode?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants