[#6143] — Christophe Poucet <christophe.poucet@...>

Hello,

17 messages 2005/10/04
[#6147] Re: patch.tgz — nobu.nokada@... 2005/10/04

Hi,

[#6199] Kernel rdoc HTML file not being created when rdoc is run on 1.8.3 — James Britt <ruby@...>

When 1.8.3 came out, I grabbed the source and ran rdoc on it. After

9 messages 2005/10/08

[#6251] RubyGems, upstream releases and idempotence of packaging — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...>

[sorry for the very late reply; I left this message in +postponed and forgot

14 messages 2005/10/12

[#6282] Wilderness: Need Code to invoke ELTS_SHARED response — "Charles E. Thornton" <ruby-core@...>

Testing the My Object Dump and I am trying to cause creation

13 messages 2005/10/14
[#6283] Re: Wilderness: Need Code to invoke ELTS_SHARED response — Mauricio Fern疣dez <mfp@...> 2005/10/14

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:04:59PM +0900, Charles E. Thornton wrote:

[#6288] Re: Wilderness: Need Code to invoke ELTS_SHARED response — "Charles E. Thornton" <ruby-core@...> 2005/10/14

Mauricio Fern疣dez wrote:

[#6365] Time for built-in Rational and Complex classes? — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

There has been some support for, but no comment on, RCR #260 ("Make

12 messages 2005/10/24
[#6366] Re: Time for built-in Rational and Complex classes? — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/24

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#6405] Re: [PATCH] Pathname.exists?() — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

12 messages 2005/10/25
[#6406] Re: [PATCH] Pathname.exists?() — TRANS <transfire@...> 2005/10/25

On 10/25/05, Berger, Daniel <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:

[#6408] Re: [PATCH] Pathname.exists?() — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2005/10/25

On 10/26/05, TRANS <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

[#6442] Wilderness: I Have formatted README.EXT into an HTML Document — "Charles E. Thornton" <ruby-core@...>

I have taken README.EXT (English Version Only) and have reformatted

14 messages 2005/10/27

[#6469] csv.rb a start on refactoring. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

For a database application I found using CSV to be rather slow.

50 messages 2005/10/28
[#6470] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/28

[#6471] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/28

On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:53 AM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6474] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/28

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6484] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6485] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/29

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6486] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:25 PM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6487] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/29

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6491] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6493] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/29

On Oct 28, 2005, at 10:06 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6496] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/29

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6502] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/30

On Oct 29, 2005, at 12:11 PM, Ara.T.Howard wrote:

[#6505] Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring. — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/30

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6511] Planning FasterCSV (was Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring.) — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2005/10/30

I've decided to create a FasterCSV library, based on the code we

[#6516] Re: Planning FasterCSV (was Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring.) — "Ara.T.Howard" <Ara.T.Howard@...> 2005/10/31

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#6518] Re: Planning FasterCSV (was Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring.) — "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nakahiro@...> 2005/10/31

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Re: Planning FasterCSV (was Re: csv.rb a start on refactoring.)

From: zdennis <zdennis@...>
Date: 2005-10-30 23:11:14 UTC
List: ruby-core #6513
James Edward Gray II wrote:
> I've decided to create a FasterCSV library, based on the code we  worked 
> out in this thread.  I'm playing with some different options  and would 
> like to hear opinions.  Would you rather I:
> 
> 1.  Add a CSV::fast_parse() to the current CSV library in an attempt  to 
> dodge compatibility issues.
> 2.  Try to make FasterCSV API compatible with CSV, so your just  change 
> your require statement if you want to switch over.
> 3.  Make FasterCSV an all new library for parsing CSV.  This might  give 
> us some fun options, like a "header" option to treat the first  as 
> headers and then allow you to access fields in the rows by name.
> 
> One feels very kludgy to me.  It smells like we don't trust the  
> solution.  Maybe we don't yet, but if we get it covered with tests  and 
> keep throwing edge cases at it, I don't see any reason we can't  get it 
> to trusted status.

I don't like this solution for the long term. It does seem *kludgey* and it seems like we're just 
adding functionality onto the current CSV lib, when you're really not adding onto it, you're 
optimizing it.

> 
> Two seems the nicest for backward compatibility, but I'm not sure how  
> far we would go.  Do I also need to support all the Reader, IOReader,  
> StringReader, Writer, BasicWriter classes?  I guess my gut feeling is  
> that I want to get away from all this complexity and back to lean,  
> functional, and fast.
> 

What would be the drawbacks of maintaining backwards compatibility and cleaning up the library?

> Three means freedom to build whatever we decide is truly needed.

The only thing I don't like about this personally is now you have two libraries to perform 
essentially the same task. One is slow, the other is fast. So why not just get rid of the slow one?

Perhaps in ruby 1.8.x trees you could offer FastCSV as a separate download for people to use, as 
FastCSV proves itself, perhaps it could be considered as a replacement for CSV in the standard 
library for Ruby 2, especially if it breaks backwards compatibility.

> 
> Here's another question, probably for Matz:  Any chance of getting  any 
> of these into the Standard Library?  If so, which would you  prefer for 
> that?
> 
> I guess I figure that if I'm just going to be offering a gem anyway,  
> there isn't much concern over a new API.
> 
> Food for thought.  Tell me what you think.


Zach

In This Thread