[phobos] Suggestions for std.process

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Yes, File should support large files whether or not it wraps FILE* or 
some other OS-dependent handle.

Andrei

David Simcha wrote:
> Of course it's fixable in principle, but is it fixable in the context of 
> File just being a wrapper around the C stdlib file IO?  I personally 
> don't care if File wraps OS-specific APIs instead of the C stdlib API, 
> but I thought that for whatever reason (maybe the reason was just ease 
> of implementation) File was supposed to only be a thin wrapper over 
> standard C I/O.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei at erdani.com 
> <mailto:andrei at erdani.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I see. At a point there was a long discussion between Sean and me
>     about how we can fix that problem. I forgot the conclusion. Anyway,
>     I know the matter can be fixed and at some point I even had a draft fix.
> 
>     Andrei
> 
>     David Simcha wrote:
> 
>         (Bangs head against wall.)  Sorry, meant 3409, 3410.
> 
>         On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
>         <andrei at erdani.com <mailto:andrei at erdani.com>
>         <mailto:andrei at erdani.com <mailto:andrei at erdani.com>>> wrote:
> 
>            I'm confused. 2409 is about delegates and 2410 also looks
>         unrelated.
>            I must be missing something.
> 
>            FWIW I recall I did solve the large file issue.
> 
> 
>            Andrei
> 
>            David Simcha wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>                On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Steve Schveighoffer
>                <schveiguy at yahoo.com <mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com>
>         <mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com <mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com>>
>                <mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com <mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com>
>         <mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com <mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com>>>> wrote:
> 
>                   Will there be an unbuffered interface to file handles?
>                    std.stdio.File wraps a FILE* which I find
>         substandard.  I don't
>                   think D should be relying on C buffering for D-only
>         constructs.
> 
>                   I actually find the whole notion of relying on libc a
>         little
>                   suspect, even for the standard handles.
> 
> 
>                You will find it a lot suspect if you try to work with files
>                over 2 GB.  See bugs 2409 and 2410.
> 
> 
>              
>          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>                _______________________________________________
>                phobos mailing list
>                phobos at puremagic.com <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com>
>         <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com>>
> 
>                http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> 
>            _______________________________________________
>            phobos mailing list
>            phobos at puremagic.com <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com>
>         <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com>>
> 
>            http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> 
> 
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         phobos mailing list
>         phobos at puremagic.com <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com>
>         http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     phobos mailing list
>     phobos at puremagic.com <mailto:phobos at puremagic.com>
>     http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos