[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I think the main point of David's proposal is still worth
>>consideration: One way to see text connections is as a way to
>>treat some kind of R objects as "generalized files" i.e., connections.
>
>
> To summarize the
Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the main point of David's proposal is still worth
> consideration: One way to see text connections is as a way to
> treat some kind of R objects as "generalized files" i.e., connections.
To summarize the motivation for the proposal, again:
-
Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to be concrete, suppose one wants to run the following as a
> concurrent process to R. (What is does is it implicitly sets x to
> zero and then for each line of stdin it adds the first field of the
> input to x and prints that to stdout unless
This may not be entirely on the mark in terms of relevancy but
just in case there is some relevancy I wanted to bring it up.
Just to be concrete, suppose one wants to run the following as
a concurrent process to R. (What is does is it implicitly sets x
to zero and then for each line of stdin it
Martin Maechler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the mean time, I think it has become clear that
> "loopconnection" isn't necessarily a better name, and that
> textConnection() has been there in "the S litterature" for a
> good reason and for quite a while.
> Let's forget about the naming and the e
> "David" == David Hinds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> on Mon, 22 Aug 2005 23:34:15 + (UTC) writes:
David> I've just implemented a generalization of R's text connections, to
David> also support reading/writing raw binary data. There is very little
David> new code to speak of.
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 09:23:37AM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>
> >"loop" is short for "loopback". A loop or loopback device is one that
> >just returns the data sent to it.
>
> That is definitely not what text connections do, and not what I read the
> proposal as being given the analogies
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> OK. I guess you want one of the core people to respond but in the
One has.
>> interim can you explain the terminology "loop"?
>> Also, do you have any prototypical applications in mind?
>
> "loop" is
Gabor Grothendieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. I guess you want one of the core people to respond but in the
> interim can you explain the terminology "loop"?
> Also, do you have any prototypical applications in mind?
"loop" is short for "loopback". A loop or loopback device is one that
OK. I guess you want one of the core people to respond but in the
interim can you explain the terminology "loop"?
Also, do you have any prototypical applications in mind?
On 8/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I accidentally left one small change out of my previous patch.
>
I accidentally left one small change out of my previous patch.
So... no response to my request for comments. Does that mean no one
has an opinion about whether this is a good idea or not? I'd
appreciate a response from an R core member one way or the other; if
this is not the right way to get a
I've just implemented a generalization of R's text connections, to
also support reading/writing raw binary data. There is very little
new code to speak of. For input connections, I wrote code to populate
the old text connection buffer from a raw vector, and provided a new
raw_read() method. For
12 matches
Mail list logo
