Specification vs. Implementation
Alex Shinn
(23 Aug 2005 02:49 UTC)
|
Re: Specification vs. Implementation
Michael Sperber
(23 Aug 2005 07:24 UTC)
|
Re: Specification vs. Implementation
Alex Shinn
(24 Aug 2005 02:48 UTC)
|
Re: Specification vs. Implementation
Per Bothner
(24 Aug 2005 04:27 UTC)
|
Re: Specification vs. Implementation Michael Sperber (24 Aug 2005 17:28 UTC)
|
Re: Specification vs. Implementation
Michael Sperber
(24 Aug 2005 17:45 UTC)
|
Re: Specification vs. Implementation Michael Sperber 24 Aug 2005 17:28 UTC
Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> writes: > The current draft says: > Streams and ports from the upper layers of the I/O system always > perform access through the abstractions provided by [the primitive > I/O] layer. > Hopefully that's not intentional - I certainly don't intend to go > through the primitive I/O layer to do I/O! No, it's not. Thanks for catching it! > I think the Primitive I/O layer has very limited usefulness. > It is somewhat similar to JAVA 1.4's 'java.nio' (New I/O) package, > which I think very few people are using directly, and even fewer > are using without also using non-blocking I/O. I agree it's won't be commonly used. However, for a number of uses (whenever you create a new kind of data source), it's absolutely essential. > Input streams might be useful, but I don't understand what > output streams are for. They're there mainly for symmetry, for people who want to live exclusively in the streams layer. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla