On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:44:47 PM UTC, Páll Haraldsson wrote: > > On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 5:17:45 PM UTC, Diego Javier Zea wrote: >> >> Hi! >> I have a function that uses `IOBuffer` for this creating one `String` >> like the example. >> Is it needed or recommended `close` the IOBuffer after `takebuf_string`? >> > > I find it unlikely. > > help?> takebuf_string > search: takebuf_string > > takebuf_string(b::IOBuffer) > > Obtain the contents of an IOBuffer as a string, without copying. > Afterwards, the IOBuffer is reset to its initial state. > > reset means they take action, and could have closed if needed; IOBuffer is > an in-memory thing, even if freeing memory was the issue, then garbage > collection should take care of that. >
Note, IOBuffer (in RAM) is not like a file in non-volatile memory (unlike RAM). > > > Since this thread was necromanced: > > @Karpinski: "The takebuf_string function really needs a new name." > > I do not see clearly that that has happened, shouldn't > > help?> takebuf_string > > show then? > > What would be a good name? Changing and/or documenting the above could be > an "up-for-grabs" issue. > @Steven: "Further, in this case, the "takebuf_string" function (or takebuf_array) isn't just conversion, it is mutation because it empties the buffer. So, arguably it should follow the Julia convention and append a ! to the name." > New function would just call the old function.. > >
