> > -- performance (some stdio implementations are slow) > > -- portability (stdio doesn't exist on some platforms!) > > You have this backwards -- you'd have to port the abstract backend > first! Also don't forget that a *good* stdio might be using all sorts > of platform-specific tricks that you'd have to copy to match its > performance. well, if the backend layer is good enough, I don't think a stdio-based standard version will be much slower than todays stdio-only implementation. > > PS. someone once told me that Perl goes "below" the standard > > file I/O system. does anyone here know if that's true, and per- > > haps even explain how they're doing that... > > Probably just means that they use the C equivalent of os.open() and > friends. hopefully. my original source described this as "digging around in the innards of the stdio package" (and so did greg). and the same source claimed it wasn't yet ported to Linux. sounds weird, to say the least, but maybe he referred to that sfio package greg mentioned. I'll do some digging, but not today. </F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4