buffered input

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:02:47 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/5/11 2:45 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> One thing I'm wondering is whether it'd be more efficient if we could
>> provide our own buffer to be filled. In cases where you want to preserve
>> the data, this could let you avoid double-copying: first copy in the
>> temporary buffer and then at the permanent storage location. If you need
>> the data only temporarily however providing your buffer to be filled
>> might be less efficient for a range that can't avoid copying to the
>> temporary buffer for some reason..
>
> Generally when one says "I want the stream to copy data straight into my  
> buffers" this is the same as "I want the stream to be unbuffered". So if  
> you want to provide your own buffers to be filled, we need to discuss  
> refining the design of unbuffered input - for example by adding an  
> optional routine for bulk transfer to input ranges.

I may want to store 1% of a very large file.  You are saying I must either  
a) unbuffer the entire file (handling the buffering on my own) or b) take  
the penalty and double copy the data.

I want c) temporarily use my buffer for buffering until I say to stop.

The range interface doesn't make this easy...

-Steve