[ python-Feature Requests-818006 ] ossaudiodev object does not
support common readonly attrs
SourceForge.net
noreply at sourceforge.net
Tue Mar 8 04:55:08 CET 2005
Feature Requests item #818006, was opened at 2003-10-05 02:30
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by tjreedy
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=818006&group_id=5470
Category: Extension Modules
Group: None
Status: Closed
Resolution: Fixed
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Dave Cinege (dcinege)
Assigned to: Greg Ward (gward)
Summary: ossaudiodev object does not support common readonly attrs
Initial Comment:
fin = ossaudiodev.open(dspfile, 'r')
if fin.closed == True:
AttributeError: closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy)
Date: 2005-03-07 22:55
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=593130
According to my dictionary, while should can be the past tense
of shall, it is also a helper (auxiliary) word, as in 'should be' that
can have various shades of meaning: obligation, propriety,
expectation, likelihood, and others similar to would. I personally
understand it as desired and proper, in between may and must. I
also believe that the standard for acceptance of library
submissions has risen in the years since this module went in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Greg Ward (gward)
Date: 2005-03-07 21:46
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=14422
If you wish to dispute the meaning of "should", I can only
refer you to RFC 2119. I'm no grammarian, but this RFC is
quite explicit that "should" != "shall", which certainly
agrees with my understanding of English.
If you think this should be formally addressed by Python
documentation standards, you should probably post to
doc-sig at python.org. I suspect you'll be met with a wall of
indifference, but you never know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Dave Cinege (dcinege)
Date: 2005-03-06 21:36
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=314434
'As the previous commenter pointed out, "should" is
not mandatory. '
Don't want to nit-pick...but in common usage and
especially legalese (which the world is unfortuntaly
infected with, that being laws) 'shall' is interperted to
mean an absolute. Should, the past tense of 'shall' ,
therefor inherits the definition of shall...which is:
1 archaic a : will have to : MUST b : will be able to :
CAN
2 a -- used to express a command or exhortation
<you shall go> b -- used in laws, regulations, or
directives to express what is mandatory
Thus, I think it's a poor idea that the use of 'should', or
'shall', should not imply what is mandatory. After all
they are a synonym for 'must'!
If the language 'may be' was used instead of 'should
be' I would not have reported this as a bug.
I think as an issue of documentation policy, this
should be...uhmmm...I mean...must be changed. : )
I don't know where I would raise this issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Greg Ward (gward)
Date: 2005-03-06 20:41
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=14422
For the record, I consider this an enhancement, not a bug
fix. As the previous commenter pointed out, "should" is not
mandatory. But it's a useful feature, and I have no
objection to adding it on a stable branch. So I've checked
it in on 2.4:
Modules/ossaudiodev.c rev 1.35.4.1
Lib/test/test_ossaudiodev.py rev 1.8.10.1
Doc/lib/libossaudiodev.tex rev 1.12.4.2
Lib/test/output/test_ossaudiodev rev 1.2.12.1
and merged to the trunk:
Modules/ossaudiodev.c rev 1.36
Lib/test/test_ossaudiodev.py rev 1.9
Doc/lib/libossaudiodev.tex rev 1.14
Lib/test/output/test_ossaudiodev rev 1.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy)
Date: 2005-03-05 15:48
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=593130
I am not sure who your last comment is aimed at. As near as I
can tell, Greg merely updated the group to Py2.4, implying that
this issue is still relevant.
In Pythonese, should is advisory; only must is mandatory. So I
see this as a request for a pre-approved enhancement. Since
ossaudiodevice directly wraps an OS open file descripter, rather
than a Python file object, the patch is more than a triviality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Dave Cinege (dcinege)
Date: 2005-03-05 13:08
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=314434
That was the point of the bug report. It has no closed
or other file-like attributes. According the python docs
then and current:
'File objects also offer a number of other interesting
attributes. These are not required for file-like objects,
but should be implemented if they make sense for
the particular object. '
I take that to mean these attributes are mandatory,
unless it does not make sense to implement them.
In the case of file-like Audio Device Objects, they
make sense, and thus should be there.
Either this statement of file-like object policy is a bug,
or the lack of such attributes in Audio Device Objects
is a bug.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Dave Cinege (dcinege)
Date: 2003-10-05 16:32
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=314434
Please see:
http://python.org/doc/current/lib/bltin-file-objects.html
"""
File objects also offer a number of other interesting attributes.
These are not required for file-like objects, but should be
implemented if they make sense for the particular object.
""
"Should be" when they "make sense" is my rational for
reporting this as a bug.
I found this by trying to convert existing code from a normal
open of /dev/dsp to ossaudiodev.open(), that IMO "should"
have worked. : P
Other attributes that "should be" implemented (mode and
name) because they "make sense" may also be missing...I
haven't checked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy)
Date: 2003-10-05 16:16
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=593130
>From Lib Ref 14.11 ossaudiodev "open( [device, ]mode)
Open an audio device and return an OSS audio device object.
"
Checking http://python.org/doc/current/lib/ossaudio-device-
objects.html 14.11.1 Audio Device Objects I can find no
mention of closed attribute or indeed of any attributes other
than methods. Why were you expecting such? If report is a
mistake, please close.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=818006&group_id=5470
More information about the Python-bugs-list
mailing list