On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 08:46:17AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > then split_any() could just tell it how much to read, and this wouldn't
> > > be as much
> > > of an issue. Alternately, split_any() could just keep track of how much
> > > was read
> > > and loop through an arbitrary number of reads, incrementing until the
> > > totals
> > > matched. That's the least intrusive approach. I'll implement it if
> > > people agree.
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > This is the approach that I had in mind. It is quite simple, actually: loop
> > until the read() returns a length such that point <= length. If point >
> > length, then subtract the length from point, and read the next bucket.
> >
> > Note that *no* split should occur when point == length.
>
> This is different than all of the other split functions. If point ==
> length, then we get one bucket with length == point and one bucket with
> length == 0. This makes the code much easier to deal with, because it
> removes special cases.
Per my other email, I see the split_any() as a way to "ensure" that the
brigade has a break point at the specified offset. (which allows us to
actually cut the brigade in two, or copy buckets, or whatever)
Given that viewpoint: creating a zero-length bucket isn't important. Also,
the split function would return the "bucket-after-point". So if you had a
brigade such as:
B1 -> B2
and you split at P==len(B1), then you get back a pointer to B2 (rather than
a pointer to a new zero-len bucket inserted before B2).
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
