Hi Neil, "Neil Jerram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry for not commenting before... I've reviewed the history, and > started looking through the patches, and I'm feeling (possibly) > confused. Am I correct in thinking that the "problem" here (which you > are aiming to solve) only affects unbuffered ports? Yes, such as sockets. > If that's right, I'm not clear why the solution is involving so much > restructuring - can't it be done without introducing the new "read" > field? I don't think so. Currently, when asking for N bytes at the application level, e.g., via `uniform-vector-read!' or `scm_c_read ()', we end up going through a series of `scm_fill_input ()'. For unbuffered ports, this translates into N `scm_fill_input ()', and for unbuffered file ports, into N one-byte `read(2)' calls. IOW, the information about how many bytes are requested by the application isn't currently transferred to port implementations. This is what the `read' method aims to solve. The `read' method also has the advantage that it doesn't need to fiddle with `port->read_buf', unlike `fill_input' (but one still has to deal with it when instantiating a port). Thanks, Ludovic.
