> It should work with streams, no doubt about it.  

> I think that there should be two separate
> interfaces-- at least that's what I've usually done in such situations.  

An argument against that would be that both en- and decoding are simply stream 
transformations. It is the context (or your mind or need at that particular time) that 
decides whether this is a decoding or encoding transformation. 

In a neutral way, two transformations could be defined, and a third object (the codec) 
defines that transformation a is encoding while transformation b is decoding.

> (or at least providing interfaces in advance to point the way, so that everything
> will grow nicely together).

Sure, anything we come up with should be able to adapt to common stream handling 
routines.

What I smell is a generic interface, not belonging in codec, but in lang, for these 
kind of transformation. 

And while I think at it, I think that one will end up with something very similar to 
the streams classes in io (because it is justified with block handling as well as 
singular symbol handling).

/O



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to