Re: [boost] Re: sockets library

From: Ross Smith (r-smith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-20 19:03:14

bill_kempf wrote:
> 
> --- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <r-smith_at_i...> wrote:
> 
> > Iostreams are a disaster area; they violate the "you don't pay for
> what
> > you don't use" rule right left and centre. Let's not throw good code
> > after bad, please.
> 
> This is only true if a basic_binary_istream were derived from
> std::basic_istream, which is going to be nearly impossible to do any
> way.  However, borrowing the design and making use of streambufs can
> make the design much more powerful, extendible and interoperable with
> existing code, and really shouldn't cause much (any?) overhead.

Fair enough; if you can come up with a binary I/O library that doesn't
derive from standard iostreams (while still using standard streambufs)
and doesn't bring locales in, I'll withdraw my objections. But I don't
entirely think it's reasonable to call it a "binary iostream"; to me the
term "I/O streams" necessarily implies something derived from standard
iostreams, and that's what I've been assuming so far.

If someone writes such a class that would be great (I don't know enough
about the arcane details of streambufs to attempt it myself), but I
don't think its name should include the word "stream", to avoid
misleading people into thinking it's an iostream in the C++ standard
sense.

-- 
Ross Smith ...................................... Auckland, New Zealand
r-smith_at_[hidden] ......................... http://storm.net.nz/~ross/
  "We need a new cosmology. New gods. New sacraments. Another drink."
                                                       -- Patti Smith