Re: Proposed addition of strcodecs(3) library - review requested

[der Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

>> I've done a lot of stdio stacking in various programs (funopen()
>> makes this sort of thing relatively easy), and it is a very pleasant
>> kind of API to use.

> There are two issues with using funopen() for this purpose:

> (1) It limits the portability of the code quite a bit.
> (2) It often creates redundant buffering.

> The first should be obvious.

Yes, though I daresay there's a lot of software that doesn't care about
the things it breaks portability to.  Almost all of mine, for example;
about the only thing beyond BSDs I care about is, occasionally, Linux,
and (almost?) all of my funopen() code works fine with an emulation
built on fopencookie().

> The second item is relevant for the typical set of inplace
> transformations or transformations than select only parts of the
> input.

I'm not sure what the issue here is.  However, I don't think it really
matters; buffering is good in plenty of cases, and I would never claim
that stdio stacking is a right answer for everything.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML                mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B