Message264457
| Author |
martin.panter |
| Recipients |
StyXman, christian.heimes, martin.panter, neologix, vstinner |
| Date |
2016年04月29日.01:43:05 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1461894187.06.0.907553969728.issue26826@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Yes, having a high-level version of copy_file_range() that falls back to copyfileobj() should be okay. I’m not sure if it should be a public API of shutil, or just an internal detail.
I am wondering if it would be nice to rearrange the os.copy_file_range() signature and make more parameters optional, or is that getting too high level?
copy_file_range(in, out, count, offset_in=None, offset_out=None, flags=0)
copy_file_range(f1, f2, size) # Try to copy a whole file
copy_file_range(f1, f2, 30, 100, 200) # Try 30 bytes at given offsets
Also left some more review comments. Also, we should eventually add test case(s) for the new functionality, and an entry to Doc/whatsnew/3.6.rst. |
|