|
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)
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005, Michael Sperber wrote: > > 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. But what benefit is achieved by having two identical (ignoring naming) layers for output, even if the separation from input streams & input ports is useful?
