Got it. Thanks. On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:45 PM Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote:
> At Wed, 16 Jun 2021 14:25:40 -0400, George Neuner wrote: > > It looks like the problem > > is that "flush" is not defined ... > > Yes, "returns without blocking after writing as many bytes as it can > immediately flush" is vague, and more or less intentionally so. The > intent it really "writes as much as is convenient, with the guarantee > that anything written is completely flushed". Maybe the documentation > should be revised to say something more like that. > > There's not intended to be a guarantee that as much is written as could > possibly make sense by `write-bytes-avail`. Implementation issues may > make writing additional bytes inconvenient enough that it doesn't > happen, for example, even if more is always written on the next > `write-bytes-avail*` call. Also, ports are meant to be used in > concurrent settings where the notion "as much as possible" is prone to > race conditions. > > The Racket BC and CS pipe implementations find different things > convenient, in this sense, and that's why they behave differently in > the example. (That is, it's not really about the Racket version, but CS > versus BC.) > > So, the intent is that you use `write-bytes` when you want to wait > until all bytes are written (maybe because you know that will be soon > enough, for whatever reason). But when using `write-bytes-avail`, be > prepared for a fraction of the bytes to be written, for whatever > reason. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAE8gKofs0PPHs9mUmSgudMZsqaUEOpV6CCzRB7D3kwZyFXartg%40mail.gmail.com.
