Minor consistency question in io.IOBase

[Carlos Nepomuceno]

----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 14:22:17 -0700
> Subject: Minor consistency question in io.IOBase
> From: dwight.guth at gmail.com
> To: python-list at python.org
>
> Hi, so, I don't necessarily know if this is the right place to ask this question since it's kindof a rather technical one which gets into details of the python interpreter itself, but I thought I'd start here and if nobody knew the answer, they could let me know if it makes sense to ask on python-dev.
>
> I am wondering why it is that the default implementations of certain of the "mixin" methods on IOBase seem to behave somewhat inconsistently. Specifically, the behavior of precisely when in the pipeline a method checks to see whether the object is already closed seems to be inconsistent.
>
> In the following methods:
>
> IOBase.__next__
> IOBase.readline
> IOBase.tell
>
> In each case, these methods never check to see whether the file is closed. __next__ immediately calls readline(), readline(limit) calls read(1) at most limit times, and tell calls seek(0, 1). It is relying on the underlying method to raise a ValueError if the file is already closed. Otherwise, __next__ and readline will raise AttributeErrors on unreadable files, and tell will raise an UnsupportedOperation on unseekable files. A side effect of this is that readline(0) on a closed file will succeed.

According to [1] & [2] it's a bug! Report the issue: http://bugs.python.org/

"close()
Flush and close this stream. This method has no effect if the file is already closed. Once the file is closed, any operation on the file (e.g. reading or writing) will raise a ValueError."

[1] http://docs.python.org/2/library/io.html#i-o-base-classes
[2] http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/io.html#i-o-base-classes