[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: binary interface
From: |
Keisuke Nishida |
Subject: |
Re: binary interface |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:44:15 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/21.0.96 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:19:01 +0100 (MET),
Dirk Herrmann wrote:
>
> Actually, no. It shows a solution for the problem that we have already
> solved, namely how to store/restore a _single_ structure. However, since
> we know how to correctly restore a single struture, a workaround for the
> moment can be to put all objects that are to be binary-written into an
> array, and then write this array. It may be that this is the only
> solution for the problem that makes sense - look at the following example:
In this case, all objects are actually written when you close the port,
right? But if you want to copy objects using a network port, that is
probably not what you want. (Or maybe we shouldn't use a network port.)
> (define foo (cons 'a 'b))
> (binary-write foo <some-port>)
> (set-car! foo 'c)
> (binary-write foo <some-port>)
Probably situations like this shouldn't be guaranteed. Otherwise,
a restricted interface like (dump OBJ FILENAME) might be better.
Kei