28-Mar-2014 21:07, Walter Bright пишет:
On 3/28/2014 9:48 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
28-Mar-2014 13:55, Walter Bright пишет:
On 3/28/2014 1:32 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Ranges have equivalents in other languages:
iterators in c++,
IEnumerator in c#,
Iterator in java
all these languages have special stream types for raw data. I don't
think it's bad if we also have streams/ranges separate in D.
Do you see a point to be able to, in an algorithm, seamlessly swap a
socket with a string?
Certainly NOT a socket. There is no escaping the fact that there are
specifics
to unbuffered direct streams.
What you mention only makes sense with buffering either implicit or
(I'd prefer)
explicit.
Yes, it does require a one element buffer. But seriously, does a one
character buffer from a socket have a measurable impact on reading from
a network?
WAT? The overhead is in issuing system calls, you'd want to do as little
of them as possible. Reading byte by byte is an exemplar of idiocy in
I/O code.
I'm an efficiency wonk as much or more than anyone, and this
appears to me to be a false savings.
Oh crap. This is very wrong. Do you often work with I/O and networking?
--
Dmitry Olshansky
