output streams vs output ports Taylor Campbell (18 Jun 2005 00:26 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (18 Jun 2005 07:57 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Taylor Campbell (18 Jun 2005 15:17 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (18 Jun 2005 18:51 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (18 Jun 2005 21:06 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (19 Jun 2005 09:09 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (19 Jun 2005 09:41 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (20 Jun 2005 05:41 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (20 Jun 2005 09:16 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (21 Jun 2005 07:43 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Shiro Kawai (21 Jun 2005 08:08 UTC)
Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber (27 Jun 2005 05:45 UTC)

Re: output streams vs output ports Michael Sperber 18 Jun 2005 07:57 UTC

Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@bloodandcoffee.net> writes:

> While I understand the utility of input streams and the rationale for
> having a separate input port abstraction on top of them, I just noticed
> that I can't find any rationale described in the document for why there
> are separate output stream & output port facilities, which are both
> imperative; indeed, the reference implementation of output ports is
> absolutely nothing more than a few extremely thin wrappers over output
> streams, not even with the added functionality of acting like a cell or
> anything as with input streams & input ports.  Is there a good reason
> for having both output streams & output ports?  Was the distinction
> perhaps a vestigial one from SML's I/O system (which I haven't
> investigated thoroughly)?

That, and the desire to keep the streams and ports layers separate.

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