Hello, Apologies if this is well-known and I just forgot it, but can bytevectors be read-only? I think we'd need that to handle read-only mmap'ed memory. (If not, I hope we could allow read-only bytevectors.)
Bytevectors include size, so there's no need to put that in a struct, but I'm not sure what I think about the flags. Noah On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 21:57 +0800, Daniel Hartwig wrote: > > On 30 April 2013 21:49, Nala Ginrut <nalagin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If I use bytevector instead, it means I have to read all the content > > > from a file first. I don't think it's the same with mmap in POSIX. > > > mmap is used for very large data I/O, if we decide to read them all, we > > > lose the game. > > > mmap does lazy disk I/O automatically for the file. > > > > > > > With the pointer that mmap returns you can pointer->bytevector. This > > will not read any of the file. > > Ah~nice! That's the critical hint to reduce the work. > Yes, after mmap, we don't need other things anymore. > But I still recommend that store 'size' & 'flags', which need a new > record-type and to write some helper functions, but very less code. > > What other guys think? > > And I'm amazing by the cool of Guile, again. ;-P > Thanks! > > > >
