ok, decision time!
I suggest the following:
1. the stream version will be a "must-have" version, since it gives us more flexibility. 2. the string version is optional
what do you think?
Dina
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Ben Webb ben@salilab.org wrote: > Daniel Russel wrote: >> Currently files which need input files take strings with the path to the >> file name. This is pretty easy, but eliminates the possibility of using >> more exotic sources and write destinations (such as reading and writing >> from memory). Since Ben has gotten streams working across the C++/Python >> bridge, we could switch our interfaces over to using streams everywhere. >> Thoughts? > > I was just thinking the same thing. If you could only choose one of > filenames or streams, streams are clearly the more flexible way to go. > (The only sort-of downside, I guess, is that for things such as density > maps, the stream would have to be in binary mode to work properly. Right > now filename-access functions can explicitly request that when they open > the ifstream, whereas there's no way I know of to check an existing stream.) > > But do we have to choose only one? One could argue that we could > overload each method, to take either a string or a stream. But it seems > more sensible to me to only have one method (the stream method) > otherwise we have lots of extra code paths to test everywhere. > > Ben > -- > ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ > "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." > - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >