From: Boris (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-11 04:20:35
Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> Simon Richter wrote:
>> Hrm, I have never missed being able to access files from a lower
>> level than iostreams so far. :-) I never do binary I/O directly in my
>> applications but always implement an inserter/extractor pair that
>> uses streambuf iterators, though.
>> iostreams' read()/write() should be enough for stream-based I/O, and
>> for datagrams I'd propose going through another step anyway (i.e.
>> have a separate stream class that does not derive from the standard
>> iostreams but rather allows inserting and extracting packets only.
> What write()?
> And as far as read(), can someone explain to me how its possible to
> this interface for anything other than files? As near as I can tell,
> has no way of expressing how much data it actually read, which is
> unacceptable, and useless, and really next door to defect-land in my
> opinion. readsome() returns streamsize, but this function isn't that
> useful either, as it will never trigger a call to underflow().
there was at least one long discussion about socket streams some time ago.
If I recall correctly the discussion ended with 1) socket streams are
desirable for a socket library as they provide an interface many developers
are familiar with (these developers can then create simple network
application quickly) and 2) socket streams can only support blocking I/O
(even this could be limited though).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk