Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Ben Goetter (13 Apr 2006 17:54 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (13 Apr 2006 18:04 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (13 Apr 2006 21:41 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (14 Apr 2006 12:49 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (14 Apr 2006 13:37 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (13 Apr 2006 22:03 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Ben Goetter (14 Apr 2006 01:02 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (14 Apr 2006 01:52 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 May 2006 16:17 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (24 May 2006 16:06 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 May 2006 16:26 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (24 May 2006 17:18 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (24 May 2006 18:11 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (14 Apr 2006 12:26 UTC)

Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Ben Goetter 14 Apr 2006 01:01 UTC

Marc Feeley wrote:
> After rereading this part of your message I think I may have
> misunderstood you.  Do you mean that the procedure's signatures should
> explicit the type of port to indicate the type constraints?
That's right.  I'm also arguing for separate procedures for opening a
byte port vs a char port.