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)
|
>From: Taylor Campbell <xxxxxx@bloodandcoffee.net> Subject: Re: output streams vs output ports Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 08:26:54 -0700 (PDT) > 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? There could be an important difference between output streams and output ports, w.r.t srfi-18 and srfi-21. (BTW, this may be good to be mentioned in this srfi as well). Srfi-18 and srfi-21 require the conforming implementations to take care of serializing simultaneous access to a port. If we have separate port/stream layers, the locking can be handled by the port layer. This frees up the stream layers from taking care of expensive locking, which will be a performance gain for e.g. translated streams. --shiro