finishing output translating stream Shiro Kawai (25 May 2005 00:05 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber (06 Jun 2005 15:15 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Shiro Kawai (07 Jun 2005 10:41 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream bear (07 Jun 2005 16:12 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber (08 Jun 2005 07:19 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Shiro Kawai (08 Jun 2005 07:37 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber (08 Jun 2005 07:52 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Shiro Kawai (08 Jun 2005 09:08 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Shiro Kawai (08 Jun 2005 09:10 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream bear (08 Jun 2005 18:10 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream bear (09 Jun 2005 02:16 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber (09 Jun 2005 05:51 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Shiro Kawai (21 Jun 2005 00:00 UTC)
Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber (22 Jun 2005 07:56 UTC)

Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber 08 Jun 2005 07:19 UTC

bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net> writes:

> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Shiro Kawai wrote:
>
>>From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
>>Subject: Re: finishing output translating stream
>>Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:15:57 +0200
>>
>>last few characters might be sitting in the character conversion
>>buffer.
>>
>>But I might be able to achieve it by creating and closing a
>>stream each time I want a complete "packet".  Though it
>>seems to me lots of overhead, it may be doable.
>
> The rational alternative is, of course, an explicit flush-stream
> call.

Indeed, but the SRFI already has this (FLUSH-OUTPUT-STREAM), which is
why I'm confused.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla