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