Browse thread
[Caml-list] Common IO classes
[
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: | Brian Hurt <bhurt@s...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Common IO classes |
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> maybe you remember the discussion about common I/O classes. We (Nicolas
> Cannasse, Yamagata Yoriyuki and I) continued the thread privately, and
> agreed upon the following draft:
>
> http://www.ocaml-programming.de/tmp/IO-Classes.html
>
> Maybe other library implementors are interested in a common standard,
> and follow this draft (our hope).
>
I like it.
Some comments:
- I wish that doing a read or write on a closed channel was required to
throw a known, defined, error. This makes actually catching and handling
the error possible. As it is, with every library possibly throwing a
different exception or even just silently ignoring the error it's
impossible to deal with the error.
Note that there would still be library-specific exceptions, for
library-specific errors. But this is a generic error that all libraries
have to deal with, and thus should deal with in the same way.
- The problem with returning 0 for non-blocking I/O when no data is
available is when someone writes:
let really_input chan str idx len =
let rec loop idx len =
let rval = chan#input str idx len in
if rval < len then
loop (idx + rval) (len - rval)
else
()
in
loop idx len
;;
Which busy waits for input. Hmm. Actually, this isn't a diaster,
necessarily. Not optimal, granted, but not a diaster. I wouldn't have a
problem saying "don't do that!", except I would like some way to determine
that I'm dealing with a non-blocking channel, so I know to not do that.
- Differing from the precise semantics of the Unix API isn't evil. I'd
much rather have it be defined and precise. That way I can at least work
around them in a portable way if they don't do precisely what I want.
Which my previous example is a demonstration of, by the way.
- Polymorphic I/O is defined as blocking, while Octet I/O may be blocking
or non-blocking. Say I'm writting a UTF8 -> UCS4 (as int) converter,
where I can read 6-7 octet to create one unicode character. How do I work
around a non-blocking octet input without busy waiting?
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford
Brian
-------------------
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