Re: A few random I/O proposals

[tmb@idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel)]

david carlton writes:
 > On Wed, 27 May 1992 17:33:50 PDT, Pavel Curtis <Pavel@parc.xerox.com> said:
 > > [lots of stuff about how flushing should work deleted]
 > 
 > I don't like this so much.  The ideal way that output should work is
 > for it to be unbuffered - buffering is really just a performance hack
 > adopted out of necessity. [...]

I agree: I don't like it either when the user (me) has to worry about
flushing buffers at the right time.

If there are no primitives for flushing output buffers, a simple
implementation may choose never to buffer output to a terminal. A
slightly more efficient implementation may flush automatically at most
(say) 100ms after a character has been written into the output buffer.

					Thomas.