For some time now, I've wanted to suggest a better abstraction for the <file> type in Python. It currently uses an antiquated C-style interface for moving around in a file, with methods like tell() and seek(). But after attributes were introduced to Python, it seems it should be re-addressed.
Let file-type have an attribute .pos for position. Now you can get rid of the seek() and tell() methods and manipulate the file pointer more easily with standard arithmetic operations.
>>> file.pos = x0ae1 #move file pointer to an absolute address >>> file.pos +=1 #increment the file pointer one byte
>>> curr_pos = file.pos #read current file pointer
You've now simplified the API by the removal of two obscure legacy methods and replaced them with a more basic one called "position".
> For some time now, I've wanted to suggest a better abstraction for the <file> type in Python. It currently uses an antiquated C-style interface for moving around in a file, with methods like tell() and seek(). But after attributes were introduced to Python, it seems it should be re-addressed.
> Let file-type have an attribute .pos for position. Now you can get rid of the seek() and tell() methods and manipulate the file pointer more easily with standard arithmetic operations.
>>>> file.pos = x0ae1 #move file pointer to an absolute address >>>> file.pos +=1 #increment the file pointer one byte
>>>> curr_pos = file.pos #read current file pointer
> You've now simplified the API by the removal of two obscure legacy methods and replaced them with a more basic one called "position".
> Thoughts?
> markj
And what approach would you use for positioning relative to
end-of-file? That's currently done with an optional second parameter to
seek() method.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Dave Angel <d...@davea.name> wrote:
> And what approach would you use for positioning relative to
> end-of-file? That's currently done with an optional second parameter to
> seek() method.
I'm not advocating for or against the idea, but that could be handled
the same way indexing into lists can index relative to the end:
negative indices.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Dave Angel <d...@davea.name> wrote:
> On 09/24/2012 05:35 PM, zipher wrote:
>> Let file-type have an attribute .pos for position. Now you can get rid of the seek() and tell() methods and manipulate the file pointer more easily with standard arithmetic operations.
>>>>> file.pos = x0ae1 #move file pointer to an absolute address
>>>>> file.pos +=1 #increment the file pointer one byte
>>>>> curr_pos = file.pos #read current file pointer
> And what approach would you use for positioning relative to
> end-of-file? That's currently done with an optional second parameter to
> seek() method.
Presumably the same way you reference a list element relative to
end-of-list: negative numbers. However, this starts to feel like magic
rather than attribute assignment - it's like manipulating the DOM in
JavaScript, you set an attribute and stuff happens. Sure it's legal,
but is it right? Also, it makes bounds checking awkward:
file.pos = 42 # Okay, you're at position 42
file.pos -= 10 # That should put you at position 32
foo = file.pos # Presumably foo is the integer 32
file.pos -= 100 # What should this do?
foo -= 100 # But this sets foo to the integer -68
file.pos = foo # And this would set the file pointer 68 bytes from end-of-file.
I don't see it making sense for "file.pos -= 100" to suddenly put you
near the end of the file; it should either cap and put you at position
0, or do what file.seek(-100,1) would do and throw an exception. But
doing the exact same operation on a saved snapshot of the position and
reassigning it would then have quite different semantics in an unusual
case, while still appearing identical in the normal case.
You raise a valid point: that by abstracting the file pointer into a position attribute you risk "de-coupling" the conceptual link between the underlying file and your abstraction in the python interpreter, but I think the programmer can take responsibility for maintaining the abstraction.
The key possible fault will be whether you can trap (OS-level) exceptions when assigning to the pos attribute beyond the bounds of the actual file on the system...
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Dave Angel <d...@davea.name> wrote:
>> On 09/24/2012 05:35 PM, zipher wrote:
>>> For some time now, I've wanted to suggest a better abstraction for the <file> type in Python. It currently uses an antiquated C-style interface for moving around in a file, with methods like tell() and seek(). But after attributes were introduced to Python, it seems it should be re-addressed.
>>> Let file-type have an attribute .pos for position. Now you can get rid of the seek() and tell() methods and manipulate the file pointer more easily with standard arithmetic operations.
>>>>>> file.pos = x0ae1 #move file pointer to an absolute address
>>>>>> file.pos +=1 #increment the file pointer one byte
>>>>>> curr_pos = file.pos #read current file pointer
>> And what approach would you use for positioning relative to
>> end-of-file? That's currently done with an optional second parameter to
>> seek() method.
> As size is an oft-useful construct, let it (like .name) be part of the
> descriptor. Then
>>>> file.pos = file.size - 80 #80 chars from end-of-file
> (Or, one could make slices part of the API...)
> mark
Well, if one of the goals was to reduce the number of attributes, we're
now back to the original number of them.
You raise a valid point: that by abstracting the file pointer into a position attribute you risk "de-coupling" the conceptual link between the underlying file and your abstraction in the python interpreter, but I think the programmer can take responsibility for maintaining the abstraction.
The key possible fault will be whether you can trap (OS-level) exceptions when assigning to the pos attribute beyond the bounds of the actual file on the system...
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> file.pos = 42 # Okay, you're at position 42
> file.pos -= 10 # That should put you at position 32
> foo = file.pos # Presumably foo is the integer 32
> file.pos -= 100 # What should this do?
Since ints are immutable, the language specifies that it should be the
equivalent of "file.pos = file.pos - 100", so it should set the file
pointer to 68 bytes before EOF.
> foo -= 100 # But this sets foo to the integer -68
> file.pos = foo # And this would set the file pointer 68 bytes from end-of-file.
Which is the same result.
> I don't see it making sense for "file.pos -= 100" to suddenly put you
> near the end of the file; it should either cap and put you at position
> 0, or do what file.seek(-100,1) would do and throw an exception.
I agree, but the language doesn't allow those semantics.
Also, what about the use of `f.seek(0, os.SEEK_END)` to seek to EOF?
I'm not certain what the use cases are, but a quick google reveals
that this does happen in real code. If a pos of 0 means BOF, and a
pos of -1 means 1 byte before EOF, then how do you seek to EOF without
knowing the file length?
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> file.pos = 42 # Okay, you're at position 42
>> file.pos -= 10 # That should put you at position 32
>> foo = file.pos # Presumably foo is the integer 32
>> file.pos -= 100 # What should this do?
> Since ints are immutable, the language specifies that it should be the
> equivalent of "file.pos = file.pos - 100", so it should set the file
> pointer to 68 bytes before EOF.
Oh, I forgot that guaranteed equivalency. Well, at least it removes
the ambiguity. I don't like it though.
> For some time now, I've wanted to suggest a better abstraction for the <file> type in Python. It currently uses an antiquated C-style interface for moving around in a file, with methods like tell() and seek(). But after attributes were introduced to Python, it seems it should be re-addressed.
> Let file-type have an attribute .pos for position. Now you can get rid of the seek() and tell() methods and manipulate the file pointer more easily with standard arithmetic operations.
>>>> file.pos = x0ae1 #move file pointer to an absolute address
>>>> file.pos +=1 #increment the file pointer one byte
>>>> curr_pos = file.pos #read current file pointer
> You've now simplified the API by the removal of two obscure legacy methods and replaced them with a more basic one called "position".
> Thoughts?
> markj
This strikes me as being a case of if it ain't broke don't fix it.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> file.pos = 42 # Okay, you're at position 42
>> file.pos -= 10 # That should put you at position 32
>> foo = file.pos # Presumably foo is the integer 32
>> file.pos -= 100 # What should this do?
> Since ints are immutable, the language specifies that it should be the
> equivalent of "file.pos = file.pos - 100", so it should set the file
> pointer to 68 bytes before EOF.
There is no reason that it has to be an int object, however. It could
well return a "FilePosition" object which does not allow subtraction
to produce a negative result. Not saying its a good idea... Similarly,
it could be a more complex object with properties on it to determine
whether to seek from beginning or end.
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:14:01 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Presumably the same way you reference a list element relative to
> end-of-list: negative numbers. However, this starts to feel like magic
> rather than attribute assignment - it's like manipulating the DOM in
> JavaScript, you set an attribute and stuff happens. Sure it's legal, but
> is it right? Also, it makes bounds checking awkward:
> file.pos = 42 # Okay, you're at position 42 > file.pos -= 10 # That should put you at position 32 > foo = file.pos # Presumably foo is the integer 32
> file.pos -= 100 # What should this do? > foo -= 100 # But this sets foo to the integer -68 > file.pos = foo # And this would set the file pointer 68 bytes
> from end-of-file.
> I don't see it making sense for "file.pos -= 100" to suddenly put you
> near the end of the file; it should either cap and put you at position
> 0, or do what file.seek(-100,1) would do and throw an exception.
I would expect it to throw an exception, like file.seek and like list indexing.
> But
> doing the exact same operation on a saved snapshot of the position and
> reassigning it would then have quite different semantics in an unusual
> case, while still appearing identical in the normal case.
But this applies equally to file.seek and list indexing today. In neither case can you perform your own index operations outside of the file/list and expect to get the same result, for the simple and obvious reason that arithmetic doesn't perform the same bounds checking as actual seeking and indexing.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:36:20 -0700, zipher wrote:
> You raise a valid point: that by abstracting the file pointer into a
> position attribute you risk "de-coupling" the conceptual link between
> the underlying file and your abstraction in the python interpreter
I don't think this argument holds water. With the ease of writing attributes, it is more likely that people will perform file position operations directly on file.pos rather than decoupling it into a variable. Decoupling is more likely with file.seek, because it is so much more verbose to use, and you get exactly the same lack of bounds checking:
py> f = open("junk", "w") # make a sample file
py> f.write("abcd\n")
py> f.close()
py> f = open("junk") # now do decoupled seek operations
py> p = f.tell()
py> p += 2000
py> p -= 4000
py> p += 2
py> p += 2000
py> f.seek(p)
py> f.read(1)
'c'
But really, who does such a sequence of arithmetic operations on the file pointer without intervening reads or writes? We're arguing about something that almost never happens.
By the way, the implementation of this is probably trivial in Python 2.x. Untested:
class MyFile(file):
@property
def pos(self):
return self.tell()
@pos.setter
def pos(self, p):
if p < 0:
self.seek(p, 2)
else:
self.seek(p)
You could even use a magic sentinel to mean "see to EOF", say, None.
<oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are many situations where a little bit of attribute access magic is a
> good thing. However, operations that involve the underlying OS and that are
> prone to raising exceptions even in bug free code should not be performed
> implicitly like this. I find the following a little cryptic:
> try:
> f.pos = 256
> except IOError:
> print('Unseekable file')
Well it might be that the coupling between the python interpreter and
the operating system should be more direct and there should be a
special exception class that bypasses the normal overhead in the
CPython implementation so that error can be caught in the code without
breaking syntax. But I don't think I'm ready to argue that point....
> You could even use a magic sentinel to mean "see to EOF", say, None.
> if p is None:
> self.seek(0, 2)
> although I don't know if I like that.
The whole concept is incomplete at one place: self.seek(10, 2) seeks beyond EOF, potentially creating a sparse file. This is a thing you cannot achieve.
But the idea is great. I'd suggest to have another property:
class MyFile(file):
@property
def relpos(self):
return FilePosition(self) # from above
@relpos.setter
def relpos(self, ofs):
try:
o = ofs.seekoffset # is it a FilePosition?
except AttributeError:
self.seek(ofs, 1) # no, but ofs can be an int as well
else:
self.seek(o, 1) # yes, it is
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Chris Angelico<ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> file.pos = 42 # Okay, you're at position 42
>> file.pos -= 10 # That should put you at position 32
>> foo = file.pos # Presumably foo is the integer 32
>> file.pos -= 100 # What should this do?
> Since ints are immutable, the language specifies that it should be the
> equivalent of "file.pos = file.pos - 100", so it should set the file
> pointer to 68 bytes before EOF.
But this is not a "real int", it has a special use. So I don't think it is absolutely required to behave like an int.
This reminds me of some special purpose registers in embedded programming, where bits can only be set by hardware and are cleared by the application by writing 1 to them.
Or some bit setting registers, like on ATxmega: OUT = 0x10 sets bit 7 and clears all others, OUTSET = 0x10 only sets bit 7, OUTTGL = 0x10 toggles it and OUTCLR = 0x10 clears it.
If this behaviour is documented properly enough, it is quite OK, IMHO.
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Oscar Benjamin
> <oscar.j.benja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are many situations where a little bit of attribute access magic is a
>> good thing. However, operations that involve the underlying OS and that are
>> prone to raising exceptions even in bug free code should not be performed
>> implicitly like this. I find the following a little cryptic:
>> try:
>> f.pos = 256
>> except IOError:
>> print('Unseekable file')
> Well it might be that the coupling between the python interpreter and
> the operating system should be more direct and there should be a
> special exception class that bypasses the normal overhead in the
> CPython implementation so that error can be caught in the code without
> breaking syntax. But I don't think I'm ready to argue that point....
>> You could even use a magic sentinel to mean "see to EOF", say, None.
>> if p is None:
>> self.seek(0, 2)
>> although I don't know if I like that.
> The whole concept is incomplete at one place: self.seek(10, 2) seeks
> beyond EOF, potentially creating a sparse file. This is a thing you
> cannot achieve.
On the contrary, since the pos attribute is just a wrapper around seek, you can seek beyond EOF easily:
f.pos = None
f.pos += 10
But for anything but the most trivial usage, I would recommend sticking to the seek method.
The problem with this idea is that the seek method takes up to three arguments (the file being operated on, the position, and the mode), and attribute syntax can only take two (the file, the position, e.g.: file.pos = position). So either there are cases that file.pos cannot handle (and so we need to keep tell/seek around, which leaves file.pos redundant), or we need multiple attributes, one for each mode), or we build a complicated, inconvenient API using special data types instead of plain integers.
So all up, I'm -1 on trying to replace the tell/seek API, and -0 on adding a second, redundant API.
Wait, there is another alternative: tuple arguments:
f.pos = (where, whence)
being the equivalent to seek(where, whence). At this point you just save two characters "f.pos=a,b" vs "f.seek(a,b)" so it simply isn't worth it for such a trivial benefit.
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Thomas Rachel
<nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa...@spamschutz.glglgl.de>
wrote:
> Am 25.09.2012 00:37 schrieb Ian Kelly:
>> Since ints are immutable, the language specifies that it should be the
>> equivalent of "file.pos = file.pos - 100", so it should set the file
>> pointer to 68 bytes before EOF.
> But this is not a "real int", it has a special use. So I don't think it is
> absolutely required to behave like an int.
The point of the proposal was to simplify the API. With that in mind,
if it's supposed to look like an int, then it should *be* an int.
> I just tried to find out what error would be raised by seeking on a file
> that doesn't support seeking and II think it's just OSError in the reworked
> hierarchy. The error in Python 2.7 is
>> Or some bit setting registers, like on ATxmega: OUT = 0x10 sets bit 7
>> and clears all others, OUTSET = 0x10 only sets bit 7, OUTTGL = 0x10
>> toggles it and OUTCLR = 0x10 clears it.
Umpfzg. s/bit 7/bit 4/.
> I don't think I'd want to work with any device where 0x10 (00010000
> binary) modifies bit SEVEN. 0x40, OTOH, would fit my mental impression
> of bit 7.
Of course. My fault.
It can as well be a bit mask, with OUTTGL = 0x11 toggling bit 4 and bit 0. Very handy sometimes.
On 2012-09-25, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:22:05 +0200, Ulrich Eckhardt
><ulrich.eckha...@dominolaser.com> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>> Am 24.09.2012 23:49, schrieb Dave Angel:
>> > And what approach would you use for positioning relative to
>> > end-of-file? That's currently done with an optional second
>> > parameter to seek() method.
>> Negative indices.
> Which still doesn't handle the third seek mode -- relative to
> current position.
fileobj.pos += <whatever>
-- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Am I in GRADUATE
at SCHOOL yet?
gmail.com
> would be a "seek.set" and with a naive driver might trigger a rewind to
> the start of the tape followed by a seek to the absolute position,
> whereas the seek from current location would only move the tape by the
> specified amount...
But a smart driver should always optimize the absolute seek to a
relative seek, unless there's a hard difference between them. After
all, the standard "read-ahead" technique is going to do an absolute
seek:
>> The whole concept is incomplete at one place: self.seek(10, 2) seeks
>> beyond EOF, potentially creating a sparse file. This is a thing you
>> cannot achieve.
> On the contrary, since the pos attribute is just a wrapper around seek,
> you can seek beyond EOF easily:
> f.pos = None
> f.pos += 10
Yes, from a syscall perspective, it is different: it is a tell() combined with a seek set instead of a relative seek. As someone mentionned, e. g. in the case of a streamer tape this might make a big difference.
> But for anything but the most trivial usage, I would recommend sticking
> to the seek method.
ACK. This should be kept as a fallback.
> ... or we need multiple attributes, one for each mode ...
Yes. That's what I would favourize: 3 attributes which each take a value to be passed to seek.
> So all up, I'm -1 on trying to replace the tell/seek API, and -0 on
> adding a second, redundant API.
