According to Tim Bunce:
> From: Chip Salzenberg <chs@nando.net>
> > According to John Macdonald:
> > > On the naming issue, I'd be inclined to use either Stream or
> > > DataStream as the top level ...
> >
> > However, sockets aren't all streams -- neither are pipes, for
> > that matter, since they preserve write() boundaries on some
> > systems. So I'd not use "Stream" as a top-level name.
>
> I think that's being rather pedantic about the definition of a Stream.
I'm making a distinction that will come naturally to anyone who (e.g.)
has ever programmed with sockets: SOCK_STREAM is one type of socket,
and SOCK_DGRAM is another.
> Anyway, I thought from recent messages we were converging towards
> IO::Stream
> as a base class name.
I'd prefer IO::Handle, myself. But I'm prepared to be ignored.
--
Chip Salzenberg, aka <chs@nando.net>
"Hey, it's the Miss Alternate Universe Pageant!"
-- Crow T. Robot, MST3K: "Stranded In Space"
> From: Chip Salzenberg <chs@nando.net>
> > According to John Macdonald:
> > > On the naming issue, I'd be inclined to use either Stream or
> > > DataStream as the top level ...
> >
> > However, sockets aren't all streams -- neither are pipes, for
> > that matter, since they preserve write() boundaries on some
> > systems. So I'd not use "Stream" as a top-level name.
>
> I think that's being rather pedantic about the definition of a Stream.
I'm making a distinction that will come naturally to anyone who (e.g.)
has ever programmed with sockets: SOCK_STREAM is one type of socket,
and SOCK_DGRAM is another.
> Anyway, I thought from recent messages we were converging towards
> IO::Stream
> as a base class name.
I'd prefer IO::Handle, myself. But I'm prepared to be ignored.
--
Chip Salzenberg, aka <chs@nando.net>
"Hey, it's the Miss Alternate Universe Pageant!"
-- Crow T. Robot, MST3K: "Stranded In Space"