RE: [Feature Discuss] Nested buffer

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> The new proposal sounds like nearly anything one might want
> to imagine.  IOW, it sounds like nothing at all.  It needs
> to be specified - nailed down quite a bit more, so people
> can actually think about it, instead of just imagining stuff.

For starters, define "nested".  Any restrictions on
nesting?  More than one level of nesting possible?

Zone/"buffer" overlap possible?  Narrowed indirect
buffers can have overlapping content, for example.
They can even hold the entire buffer contents.  (The
word "nested" doesn't suggest this possibility, but
who knows what was intended?)

Define just what the things are that get nested,
and what they are nested in (same kind of thing?).
Are they really buffers? pieces of buffers? views
of buffers?  Define how they can be nested - just
what "nesting" means here.

If this is going to lead to anything, there needs
to be more flesh, I think: either some more
specification or some beginning code to think about.

Contrast Alan's detailed description of "islands".
That led to some interesting discussion because
it was fairly complete, detailed, and clear.  The
current suggestion is, so far, just two words:
"nested" and "buffer".