djsundog/circuitpython
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs/uio: Typo fixes/lexical improvements.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Paul Sokolovsky 2017-01-29 16:18:33 +03:00
parent bdb0d22fe2
commit 0ddeedfc73
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
docs/library/uio.rst
View File

@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ and made implicit to achieve higher efficiencies and save resources.
An important dichotomy in CPython is unbuffered vs buffered streams. In
MicroPython, all streams are currently unbuffered. This is because all
modern OSes, and even many RTOSes and filesystem drivers already perform
buffering on their side. Adding another later of buffering is counter-
productive (an issue known as "bufferbloat") and spends precious memory.
buffering on their side. Adding another layer of buffering is counter-
productive (an issue known as "bufferbloat") and takes precious memory.
Note that there still cases where buffering may be useful, so we may
introduce optional buffering support at a later time.
@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ it's whether a stream may incur short read/writes or not. A short read
is when a user asks e.g. 10 bytes from a stream, but gets less, similarly
for writes. In CPython, unbuffered streams are automatically short
operation susceptible, while buffered are guarantee against them. The
no short read/writes is an important traits, as it allows to develop
no short read/writes is an important trait, as it allows to develop
more concise and efficient programs - something which is highly desirable
for MicroPython. So, while MicroPython doesn't support buffered streams,
it still provides for no-short-operations streams. Whether there will
@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ be a port-specific class, where such a need is governed by hardware
peculiarities.
The no-short-operations behavior gets tricky in case of non-blocking
streams, blockedness vs non-blockedness being another CPython dichotomy,
streams, blocking vs non-blocking behavior being another CPython dichotomy,
fully supported by MicroPython. Non-blocking streams never wait for
data either to arrive or be written - they read/write whatever possible,
or signal lack of data (or ability to write data). Clearly, this conflicts
@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ buffered (and this no-short-ops) streams is convoluted in CPython - in
some places, such combination is prohibited, in some it's undefined or
just not documented, in some cases it raises verbose exceptions. The
matter is much simpler in MicroPython: non-blocking stream are important
for efficient asynchronuous operations, so this property prevails on
for efficient asynchronous operations, so this property prevails on
the "no-short-ops" one. So, while blocking streams will avoid short
reads/writes whenever possible (the only case to get a short read is
if end of file is reached, or in case of error (but errors don't