>> I have considered doing a general peekable 'thing' implementation which would
>> be passed a 'thing' source and would allow 'thing' lookahead. I'm not sure
>> it would be worth the trouble, since it really needs to be in C. Also, there
>> is the question of passing it a method when creating the peekable object.
Sorry C coding is so hard for you.
>> But you realize that there is an advantage in being able to peek
>> the input of all kinds of code out there that people have already
>> written? What if I could peek a stream to decide whether I was
>> going to treat it as text or pass it to the existing rfc822
>> parser?
I always called that reading data. I also dont advocate letting
programs make too many decisions, I prefer explicit options.
>> I think (it's a bit hard to tell) that John Redford and I have a different
>> idea of what a file object should be. For the record, "The map is not the
>> territory".
Yup. I think that this 'module', like most others related to the OS
should be merely posixy, and that anything funky should be done in
subclasses.
For the record, "The flame is not the post."
-- John Redford (AKA GArrow) | 3,600 hours of tape. jredford@lehman.com | 5 cans of Scotchguard.