[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: output streams vs output ports

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 68 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 68 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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