TextIOBase class should be under the I/O Base Classes section

[habib-source]

Documentation

TextIOBase is a base class .
TextIOBase class should be under the I/O Base Classes section

Linked PRs

• gh-148467: Move io.TextIOBase docs to "I/O Base Classes" section #150015

[picnixz]

It took me a while to understand what you meant but I now I see:

In Text I/O, we have class io.TextIOBase and class io.TextIOWrapper, but indeed io.TextIOBase should be moved to the I/O base section.

[serhiy-storchaka]

cc @pitrou

[dagangtj]

I'd like to work on this. I'll submit a PR to move the TextIOBase class documentation under the I/O Base Classes section.

[dagangtj]

Hi, I'd like to work on this documentation fix. The issue is clear — TextIOBase should be moved under the I/O Base Classes section in Doc/library/io.rst. I'll prepare a PR shortly.

[serhiy-storchaka]

Creating a PR request is trivial, but deciding what it should do is not. We should first ask the author of the original documentation, @birkenfeld. Moving TextIOBase to the I/O Base Classes section will move it too far from TextIOWrapper.

BufferedIOBase was initially in the Buffered Streams section. It was moved to the I/O Base Classes by @benjaminp in b6c7beb. But TextIOBase was left in its original place.

[birkenfeld]

I don't think I can remember anything about this anymore :)

[serhiy-storchaka]

What is your opinion, @birkenfeld and @benjimin? Should we move TextIOBase to "I/O Base Classes" or move BufferedIOBase back to "Buffered Streams"? Or leave it as is, in inconsistent state?

[habib-source]

If you move BufferedIOBase back to "Buffered Streams". I think RawIOBase would have to move to "Raw File I/O"