[phobos] UnbufferedFile, or, abstracting the File ranges

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Yah, sorry. so byByte, byChar, and byChunk make sense for unbuffered 
input, but byLine is onerous.

Andrei

Lars Tandle Kyllingstad wrote:
> Do you mean byByte and byChunk?
> 
> -Lars
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:16 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> I think these could be actually byByte and byLine.
>>
>> Regarding your initial question - generally the range defintion 
>> "belongs" to the file/container as it has intimate contact with it. You 
>> could find incidental commonality and exploit it, but conceptually they 
>> should appear as independent types.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>> Lars Tandle Kyllingstad wrote:
>>> Well, that would at least mean less work for me. :)
>>>
>>> Which I/O methods should it contain, then, in your opinion?  Would
>>>
>>>         bool read(ref ubyte b);
>>>         size_t read(ref ubyte[] b);
>>>         void write(ubyte b);
>>>         void write(ubyte[] b);
>>>
>>> suffice?
>>>
>>> -Lars
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 05:02 -0700, Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> Re: byLine and byChunk, I don't think these are a good idea on
>>>> unbuffered files.
>>>>
>>>> For example, your current implementation will be extremely slow.
>>>> Reading one char at a time is OK on a buffered file, because most
>>>> times its just a simple fetch of a char from a buffer.  But your
>>>> implementation reads a single character at a time from the actual file
>>>> on disk, a very slow operation.
>>>>
>>>> I think unbuffered files are good for when you want to handle the
>>>> buffering yourself, or when you want to pass them to child processes.
>>>>
>>>> -Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> From: Lars Tandle Kyllingstad <lars at kyllingen.net>
>>>> To: Phobos mailing list <phobos at puremagic.com>
>>>> Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 7:40:15 AM
>>>> Subject: [phobos] UnbufferedFile, or, abstracting the File ranges
>>>>
>>>> In the process of designing std.process it has become obvious, as
>>>> pointed out by Steve, that Phobos needs facilities for unbuffered I/O.
>>>> To that end, I've started writing an UnbufferedFile type, the current
>>>> status of which can be seen here:
>>>>
>>>>         Code:
>>>> http://github.com/kyllingstad/ltk/blob/master/ltk/stdio.d
>>>>         Docs: http://kyllingen.net/code/ltk/doc/stdio.html
>>>>
>>>> (Disclaimer: This is very much a work-in-progress, there's lots of
>>>> stuff
>>>> that needs to be added yet, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't lots
>>>> of
>>>> room for improvement, performance-wise.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, while writing this it has kind of annoyed me that I have to write
>>>> new implementations of the byLine and byChunk ranges.  I've personally
>>>> found them incredibly useful, so I want them in UnbufferedFile, but
>>>> the
>>>> ones in std.stdio are tailored for File.
>>>>
>>>> I therefore suggest we try to abstract these ranges, so they can
>>>> operate
>>>> on general types that define a set of primitives such as read(),
>>>> readc()
>>>> and readln().
>>>>
>>>> Are there problems with this?  Any comments?
>>>>
>>>> -Lars
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> phobos mailing list
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> phobos mailing list
>>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos