Hi
On 9/6/06, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fortunately, the undefined behavior in this case is unrelated to the
lazy IO. On windows, the removal of the file will fail, while on
posix systems there won't be any failure at all. The same behavior
would show up if you opened the file fo
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:47:20PM +0100, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 17:36 -0400, Robert Dockins wrote:
> > Well, AFAIK, the behavior is officially undefined, which is my
> > real beef. I agree that it _should_ throw an exception.
>
> Ah, I had thought it was defined to simply t
Quoth Julien Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
| But what happens when two processes use the same file and one process is
| writing into it using lazy IO which didn't happen yet? The other process
| wouldn't see its changes yet.
That's actually a much more general problem, one that I imagine applies
Duncan Coutts wrote:
Hi,
> In practise I expect that most programs that deal with file IO strictly
> do not handle the file disappearing under them very well either. At best
> the probably throw an exception and let something else clean up.
And at least in Unix world, they just don't disappear.
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 17:36 -0400, Robert Dockins wrote:
> Perhaps I should be more clear. When I said "advanced" above I meant "any
> use
> whereby you treat a file as random access, read/write storage, or do any kind
> of directory manipulation (including deleting and or renaming files)". L
On Friday 01 September 2006 18:01, Donn Cave wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Robert Dockins wrote:
> > On Friday 01 September 2006 16:46, Duncan Coutts wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> Note also, that with lazy IO we can write really short programs that are
> >> blindingly quick. Lazy IO allows us to save a copy
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Robert Dockins wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 16:46, Duncan Coutts wrote:
...
>> Note also, that with lazy IO we can write really short programs that are
>> blindingly quick. Lazy IO allows us to save a copy through the Handle
>> buffer.
(Never understood why some people
On Friday 01 September 2006 16:46, Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 16:28 -0400, Robert Dockins wrote:
> > On Friday 01 September 2006 15:19, Tamas K Papp wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am newbie, reading the Gentle Introduction. Chapter 7
> > > (Input/Output) says
> > >
> > > Pragma
On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 16:28 -0400, Robert Dockins wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 15:19, Tamas K Papp wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am newbie, reading the Gentle Introduction. Chapter 7
> > (Input/Output) says
> >
> > Pragmatically, it may seem that getContents must immediately read an
> > ent
On Friday 01 September 2006 15:19, Tamas K Papp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am newbie, reading the Gentle Introduction. Chapter 7
> (Input/Output) says
>
> Pragmatically, it may seem that getContents must immediately read an
> entire file or channel, resulting in poor space and time performance
> und
Hi,
I am newbie, reading the Gentle Introduction. Chapter 7
(Input/Output) says
Pragmatically, it may seem that getContents must immediately read an
entire file or channel, resulting in poor space and time performance
under certain conditions. However, this is not the case. The key
point
11 matches
Mail list logo
