Leandro,

The CS is nice (and works very well) but running a benchmark makes me feel
that there's no real point in using the buffered version - as an example, I
was doing a "InterpreterSupportCode compileAll" and it took twice as long
(!) using the buffered version compared to the original (unbuffered)
StandardFileStream. Considering that the file primitives on Windows are
quite slow (since they use unbuffered reads through the OS) this result is
somewhat surprising.

Do you perhaps use the buffered versions for other than speed improvements?!
If so, what do you use it for?!

Cheers,
  - Andreas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf
> Of Leandro
> Caniglia
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:45 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: [ENH] StandardFileStream-buffering
>
>
> >from preamble:
>
> "Change Set:		StandardFileStream-buffering
> Date:			30 August 2001
> Author:			Leandro Caniglia
>
> Adds dynamic buffering support to StandardFileStream
> and subclasses. Files can be buffered and unbuffered
> on the fly. The buffer size of a file can change
> dynamically. New instances automatically born
> buffered or unbuffered, depending on a class setting
> (see StandardFileStream class >> instancesAreBuffered)"
> !