[Scott] > > The "safe > > buffer protocol" is likely to cater to a wide class of users. I could be > > wrong, but the "lockable gapped buffer protocol" probably appeals to a > much > > smaller set. > [Neil] > Its not that a "lockable gapped buffer protocol" is needed. It is that > the problem with the old buffer was that the lifetime of the pointer is not > well defined. The proposal changes that by making the lifetime of the > pointer be the same as the underlying object. That's exactly what *I* need, ... > This restricts the set of > objects that can be buffers to statically sized objects. I'd prefer that > dynamically resizable objects be able to be buffers. > ..., but I understand Neil's requirements. Can they be fulfilled by adding some kind of UnlockObject() call to the 'safe buffer interface', which should mean 'I won't use the pointer received by getsaferead/writebufferproc any more'? Thomas
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