Hello Simon, Friday, February 10, 2006, 2:53:25 PM, you wrote: i'm not very interested to do something fascinating in this area. it seems that it is enough to do 1) non-blocking read of the entire buffer on input 2) flush buffer at each '\n' at output that should be enough to implement LineBuffering for everyone except purists? and for the NoBuffering the same except for flushing after each output operation?
DC> "Slow" devices like pipes, sockets etc. get along fine with Handles DC> or whatever buffered I/O - as long as you have only one going at a time. DC> Multiple input sources - like, say you want to read a process' output DC> (unit 1) and diagnostic output (unit 2) separately, and either one has DC> the potential to fill up the pipe and block while you're waiting for DC> input on the other pipe - buffers at least complicate the dispatching DC> mechanics you need for this, if not make it impossible.
are you tried LineBuffering and NoBuffering? seem that it is developed exactly for this case (plus for terminals)
DC> That's part of the idea, it helps keep the data out of buffers where DC> select or whatever can't see it.
DC> But then you need functions with semantics that really support unbuffered DC> I/O. When select tells you that the device is readable, you don't know DC> that there is one full line, or how many bytes there are, so hGetLine DC> doesn't apply here, nor would the Haskell equivalent of fread(3) if there DC> were one. The only thing left is hGetChar - one char, then select, then DC> another. (And multi-byte chars cause us to worry about this.)
when i think how to implementat LineBuffering, i decided that it is the only possible way - read byte a time and see for a '\n'. i don't know how System.IO implemented but i think that it should do the same
SM> Read as much as you can into the buffer without blocking. Line SM> buffering on input is actually implemented exactly the same as block SM> buffering. SM> You might argue that strictly speaking this isn't line buffering, since SM> you can get data from the Handle before the end of line is available. SM> That's true, but I'd argue this is more useful. In fact, we changed SM> block buffering on input handles so that the input buffer doesn't have SM> to be completely full before data can be returned, which is also not SM> strict block buffering, but seems more useful. SM> I suppose conceivably you might want to force a read buffer to be SM> completely full so that you could guarantee to read it all without SM> blocking, but in that case you might as well use hGetBuf & peekArray. SM> Similarly you might want to ensure the buffer contains a complete line SM> before starting to read it, but can use hGetLine anyway. -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:bulatz@HotPOP.com