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)
|
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)?