On 14 Feb 2007, at 14 February/22:57, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Alan Lovejoy wrote:
>> <Andreas>
>> Buffer streaming. It is very handy to be able to share the underlying
>> collection with a stream when you know what you are doing.
>> <Andreas>
>> Yes.  It would be even better to be able to do that wihout having  
>> to know so
>> much about what some other object might or might not do.
>
> I'm not advocating this as a general solution but I understood the  
> question to be about whether anyone has ever used that and whether  
> therefore such a change has the potential to break something  
> severely. And indeed, if you know what you are doing, this can be  
> very handy and very speedy.

It was indeed my question: get some real examples.

In fact, I need that you need both options. One which you know is  
safe, and one that is shared and where you need to know what you are  
doing.

BUT

In the current implementation you actually have an implicit mixture  
of both. You start out with a shared collection. But when it becomes  
too big, it grows (so it is copied) and then they are suddenly  
decoupled. That is not really as it should be.

>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>> Damien is right.  Either Streams should ensure their internal  
>> collections
>> are unique to them, or they should assume that other objects have  
>> references
>> to those collections, and might be expecting the stream to always be
>> referencing the same collection.  The second approach can be  
>> implemented
>> using #become:.
>> --Alan
>
>