From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA30594; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:01:10 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA30301 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:01:08 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from smtp.mbg.ocn.ne.jp (mbg.ocn.ne.jp [210.190.142.181])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3RG16YM012387
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:01:07 +0200
Received: from localhost (p34096-adsau14honb7-acca.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp [220.111.84.96])
	by smtp.mbg.ocn.ne.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 73ED154D6; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:01:05 +0900 (JST)
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:00:33 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20040428.010033.85418284.yoriyuki@mbg.ocn.ne.jp>
To: info@gerd-stolpmann.de
Cc: warplayer@free.fr, caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure
From: Yamagata Yoriyuki <yoriyuki@mbg.ocn.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <1083013017.8842.327.camel@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de>
References: <20040427.002643.78700697.yoriyuki@mbg.ocn.ne.jp>
	<016401c42bc4$b6438840$19b0e152@warp>
	<1083013017.8842.327.camel@ice.gerd-stolpmann.de>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Miltered: at concorde by Joe's j-chkmail ("http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr")!
X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr
X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 yamagata:01 yoriyuki:01 yoriyuki:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 caml-list:01 2004:99 ocamlnet:01 char:01 camomile:01 char:01 camomile:01 ocamlnet:01 atom:01 
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

From: Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Common IO structure
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:56:59 +0200

> Of course, sharing the same method name is possible, in ocamlnet we have
> e.g. output_char where camomile has put_char. So the question is whether
> this is worth the effort.

Camomile uses "put", not "put_char", because channels are polymorphic.
If ocamlnet channels have input/output for strings, but have
output_char for one Unicode character, then I would say output_char is
different from Camomile "put", because Camomile "put" is supposed to
output one atom (for character channles, atom is char, not a Unicode
character.)

Since I am convinced by Gerd's argument for close_in/close_out, I
updates my proposal as
(for input)
['a] object 
     get : unit -> 'a 
     close_in : unit
end 
(raise End_of_file when there is no more element to read.)

(for output)
['a] object 
     put : 'a -> unit 
     flush : unit -> unit 
     close_out : unit -> unit
end

for a character channel,
(for input)
object 
       input : string -> int -> int -> int 
       close_in : unit
end

([c#input s pos len] fills s from pos with less than [len] characters,
and returns the number of characters really filled.)

(for output)
object 
       output : string -> int -> int -> unit
       flush : unit -> unit
       close_out : unit -> unit
end
([c#output s pos len] outputs [len] characters from the position
[pos])

But the distinction of put/input, get/output may be confusing.  Hmmm.

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners