Group Email Manager

login signup
Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Ben Goetter (13 Apr 2006 17:54 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (13 Apr 2006 18:04 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (13 Apr 2006 21:41 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (14 Apr 2006 12:49 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (14 Apr 2006 13:37 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (13 Apr 2006 22:03 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Ben Goetter (14 Apr 2006 01:02 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (14 Apr 2006 01:52 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (24 May 2006 16:17 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Thomas Bushnell BSG (24 May 2006 16:26 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (24 May 2006 17:18 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? Marc Feeley (24 May 2006 18:11 UTC)
(missing)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (24 May 2006 16:06 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan (14 Apr 2006 12:26 UTC)
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such? John Cowan 13 Apr 2006 18:04 UTC 
Ben Goetter scripsit:

> If you separate byte ports from character ports, and separate input
> ports from output ports (at least at the API level), you get an easily
> type-checked interface.  e.g.

+1

(and likewise all the other points)

--
John Cowan    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan   <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
    "Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context.  A telegram
    that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in
    5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document
    as any, even sans digital signature." --me