On 16 March 2012 02:37, Ian Price <[email protected]> wrote: > Daniel Hartwig <[email protected]> writes: >> For example, reusing the same bytevector and looping over >> read-response-body! saving the results to disk each time. This limits >> the memory use to the size of the bytevector *and* removes the copy >> operation from your implementation (bonus!). > If you wanted to do it that way, it'd be better to pass in the port > directly and cut out the middle man. >
Indeed. The procedure shown is similar to one from one of my own projects which features the write-to-disk internally. I guess it pays to keep in mind that it is trivial to rearrange procedures such as this to suit any particular situation. The OP appeared--to me--to be very over worked for the task. Perhaps such error-tolerance/streaming capabilities can be tied in at a level closer to get-bytevector-n... Regards
