Stream interfaces

Topmind topmind at technologist.com
Wed Feb 28 03:03:49 CET 2001


> In article <MPG.1505ab2efd31b1639896b4 at news.earthlink.net>,
> Topmind <topmind at technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >I admit that I am not an expert on streams, but this 
> >hierarchy seams tree-happy to me.
> >
> 
> stream := (String new: 1000) readStream.
> 
> stream := 'myFile' asFileName writeStream.
> 
> Same idea, but simpler...
> 

Simpler than what?

What I showed was illustrative of the concept, not the
utmost fewest syntax. Names can be given to common
combinations, for example. (This could be in the 
form of functions, or a built-in configuration names.)

You are not selling hierarchies, but shortcut names.

My approach has WAY more possible combos than a tree.

Make a little grid and see for yourself.

> 
> >Why not have something like this instead:
> >
> >s = newStream(....)
> >s.peekable = true
> >s.positionable = false
> >s.external = blah
> >s.buffered = blah
> >s.readAble = true
> >s.writeAble = true
> >[use the stream now.....]
> >
> >(Note that the dot syntax could be a 
> >dictionary instead of an object, BTW.
> >Also note that these would have *defaults*
> >so that not every setting needs to be
> >explicitly set.)
> >
> >This setup is much easier to manage and grok IMO.  It also allows *more*
> >potential combinations, like buffered internal streams. (I can't think of
> >why anybody would want such, but why limit the future to one's
> >current lack of imagination. Perhaps they want to test buffering 
> >locally.)
> >
> >I want to flatten GUI's and Collections in a similar way. 
> >
> >Flatten flatten flatten!
> >
> >-flatmind-
> >
> >(But I am not flat-footed. I have a very prominent arch.)
> >
> >

-tmind-



More information about the Python-list mailing list