On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) <[email protected]> wrote: >> thinking about it... why not just let stream() fail and let the program >> decide if it makes sense to continue without it? > > Exactly what I was thinking. If the program requires the semantics of > stream(), it should be able to reliably discover when they aren't > available.
I prefer John's approach. It's a trivial change and doesn't require most programmers to think too hard. Bear in mind that if you don't want to use John's functions, you don't have to: all those decisions are made at library level. Streaming is available whether or not you use his "client" functions. But rather than talk this to death, the best bet is to try it out and see. A good first cut is to pick a bunch of programs, mod them to use streams, and we can see which approach makes the most sense. Learn By Doing. ron
