|
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)
|
Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@bloodandcoffee.net> writes: > 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? - It would be somewhat strange to have input *ports*, but output *streams*. - The cost is virtually nil. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
