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)

output streams vs output ports Taylor Campbell 18 Jun 2005 00:35 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)?