Message264494
| Author |
StyXman |
| Recipients |
StyXman, christian.heimes, martin.panter, neologix, vstinner |
| Date |
2016年04月29日.12:29:05 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1461932946.17.0.0765667972098.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 about this. For the moment c_f_o() is available only if the syscall is there.
> I am wondering if it would be nice to rearrange the os.copy_file_range() signature and make more parameters optional, [...]
>
> copy_file_range(in, out, count, offset_in=None, offset_out=None, flags=0)
I agree with this, most of the time you will want to just advance both offsets, and providing None all the time can be tiring.
I fixed this, modified a little the doc, but now I'll read about integer types and sizes. |
|