RE: [boost] Re: sockets library

From: Darryl Green (green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-20 22:55:35

I think this addresses my concerns.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mfdylan [mailto:dylan_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, 21 December 2001 1:14 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: sockets library
> 
> 
> --- In boost_at_y..., Ross Smith <r-smith_at_i...> wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> Look at the one I put in files (under socketbuf.zip), it doesn't 
> involve locales or iostreams at all, in fact it doesn't even derive 
> from ios, which there might be a some reasonable argument for.
> All it does is make use of the standardised streambuf interface (in 
> fact the only functions it uses are sputn(), sgetn() and sync()).
> It *is* a stream however, and it would be misleading to call it 
> anything else.  I think binary_stream as opposed to binary_iostream 
> works as a name - the interface is largely the same as std::iostream, 
> and conceptually they are both streams, but it doesn't make any claim 
> to *be* a std::iostream.
> 
> Dylan
> 
> 
> 
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Send unsubscribe requests to: 
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]> 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/