asyncio.WriteTransport.set_write_buffer_limits orders its args unintuitively and inconsistently with its companion function's return value

[vitaly-krugl]

BPO	33024
Nosy	@asvetlov, @1st1, @vitaly-krugl

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2018-03-08.06:24:49.146>
labels = ['type-bug', '3.7', 'expert-asyncio']
title = "asyncio.WriteTransport.set_write_buffer_limits orders its args unintuitively and inconsistently with its companion function's return value"
updated_at = <Date 2018-03-08.11:51:39.248>
user = 'https://github.com/vitaly-krugl'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2018-03-08.11:51:39.248>
actor = 'asvetlov'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['asyncio']
creation = <Date 2018-03-08.06:24:49.146>
creator = 'vitaly.krug'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 33024
keywords = []
message_count = 2.0
messages = ['313423', '313435']
nosy_count = 3.0
nosy_names = ['asvetlov', 'yselivanov', 'vitaly.krug']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = None
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue33024'
versions = ['Python 3.6', 'Python 3.7']

[vitaly-krugl]

asyncio.WriteTransport.set_write_buffer_limits() uses an unintuitive order of the args (high, low). I would expect low to be the first arg, especially since asyncio.WriteTransport.get_write_buffer_limits() returns them in the opposite order. This ordering and inconsistency with the companion function's return value is error-prone. See https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio-protocol.html#asyncio.WriteTransport.set_write_buffer_limits

[asvetlov]

We cannot change the method signature without breaking backward compatibility.
I doubt if we should do something with the issue.

[kumaraditya303]

Closing as it cannot be done without breaking backward compatibility.