On 2/7/11 7:53 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 00:46:40 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
I've had the opportunity today to put some solid hours of thinking
into the relationship (better said the relatedness) of what would be
called "buffered streams" and ranges. They have some commonalities and
some differences, but it's been difficult to capture them. I think now
I have a clear view, caused by a few recent discussions. One was the
CSV reader discussed on the Phobos list; another was the discussion on
defining the "right" std.xml.
[snip]
What do you all think?
I haven't read many of the responses, but I'll say again what I've
always said. The range concept does not fit streams very well. I think a
range can be built on a stream, but I think a buffered stream should be
it's own type (similar to how you laid it out a few weeks ago).
IMO, a stream should be a simple class hierarchy that defines
input/output and buffering. Then ranges can be built on top of the
stream to interface with other parts of phobos.
One good thing about the current proposal is that it integrates
seamlessly with that one.
Andrei
