Browse thread
[Caml-list] [ANN] The Missing Library
-
John Goerzen
-
Kenneth Knowles
- Alexander V. Voinov
-
John Goerzen
-
Maxence Guesdon
-
John Goerzen
- Maxence Guesdon
-
John Goerzen
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
John Goerzen
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
- Gerd Stolpmann
-
Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
- Jacques GARRIGUE
- Nicolas Cannasse
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
-
Yamagata Yoriyuki
-
Nicolas Cannasse
- oliver@f...
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
-
John Goerzen
- Henri DF
- Shawn Wagner
- james woodyatt
-
Alain.Frisch@e...
- Basile STARYNKEVITCH
-
John Goerzen
- Kenneth Knowles
- Florian Hars
-
Maxence Guesdon
- Eric C. Cooper
-
Kenneth Knowles
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Yamagata Yoriyuki <yoriyuki@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure |
From: "Nicolas Cannasse" <warplayer@free.fr> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:08:18 +0200 > - Yamagata Yoriyuki want IO to be on a char basis (and that makes sense for > Unicode) > - you would prefer having buffered channels (and that make sense for network > protocols, parsing, ...) > - I propose that we have two way of accessing the channel, that can be > buffered or unbuffered, or others. I think this is enough general to cover a > lot of different usage, and introduce some interesting polymorphism. > I would like to get your opinion on that. I agree buffered I/O for byte-char I/O. I prefer object ... input : string -> int -> int -> int ... end object ... output : string -> int -> int -> unit ... end than your nread/nwrite though. I am against buffered I/O for polymorphic channels, because it would not be easy to come up with a standard for buffer types. All arguments for buffered I/O raised in the list are so far about byte-character I/O (including UTF-8 channels.) Di-polymorphic channels are interesting, but unless we have a standard for buffer types, it would not be useful for the standard. It will be easy to write a mapping from uni-polymorphic channels to Di-polymorphic channels and vice verse, so IO system of Extlib does not need to change. In the future, when Extlib IO is widely used, we could regard Extlib IO as the standard. Since we do not have even common Unicode character type, we can not discuss standardization of Unicode channels. (one thing at a time!) Please see my all arguments about Unicode channels as an example of polymorphic channels. I still believe my proposal in the previous mail http://caml.inria.fr/archives/200404/msg00716.html is reasonable, except for the method names. -- Yamagata Yoriyuki ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners