Andy Wingo skribis:
> The goal was to be able to provide Scheme functions that operate on
> ports, but that can suspend the operation via an abort-to-prompt if it
> will block. This can only be done if we are not recursing through C.
> Exposing the fundamental buffers lets port operations to be
On Fri 18 Jan 2013 22:27, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>> As a thought experiment, I don't see why things should have to slow
>> down. Master has `scm_c_take_gc_bytevector', which can be used to wrap
>> the existing scm_t_port::write_buf, ::read_buf, and ::putba
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> As a thought experiment, I don't see why things should have to slow
> down. Master has `scm_c_take_gc_bytevector', which can be used to wrap
> the existing scm_t_port::write_buf, ::read_buf, and ::putback_buf
> members. At the cost of three allocations per port and th
Hi,
Again, picking up old things:
On Wed 11 Apr 2012 00:11, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo skribis:
>
>> Obviously we need ports implemented in C because of bootstrapping
>> concerns. But can we give Scheme access to buffering and the underlying
>> fill (read) / drain (wri
Hi Andy,
Andy Wingo writes:
> I have been thinking about ports recently. I know other folks have had
> some thoughts here too, so it's probably good to have a discussion about
> how they should look.
I apologize that I've not yet had time to properly look into your eports
work, so I'm afraid th
Hello!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> Obviously we need ports implemented in C because of bootstrapping
> concerns. But can we give Scheme access to buffering and the underlying
> fill (read) / drain (write) / wait (select) operations?
>
> So, the idea: refactor the port buffers (read, write, putback) t
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Mike Gran wrote:
> Anyway, here's an idea. Let's call the C code for ports 'base ports'.
>
> 1. Refactor the C reader so that it took on the responsibility of
> storing the putbacked (ungotton?) characters.
>
> 2. This would let you simplify the base ports
> From: Andy Wingo
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have been thinking about ports recently. I know other folks have had
>some thoughts here too, so it's probably good to have a discussion about
>how they should look.
...
>Obviously we need ports implemented in C because of bootstrapping
>concerns. But can
