> ... I've attached a working version which you can use instead of
> System.IO.hGetBuf ...
But that version had a bug in it too (sigh). Here's another attempt...
Cheers,
Simon
HGetBuf.hs
Description: HGetBuf.hs
___
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailin
> The problem with downloading things direct from CVS is that I
> don't expect people
> to run substantial tests before checking things into CVS.
> (We don't on our CVS
> server.) Of course I don't expect a snapshot release to have
> the same reliability
> as a real release, but at least snaps
Simon Marlow wrote (snipped):
BTW George: there are plenty of 6.1.xxx snapshots available - these
are the 6.2 prereleases.
There are, but no recent ones. What I would like to have had is a 6.2-epsilon
version, not 6.1 and a bit.
We don't snapshot along the STABLE branch at
the moment; no re
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:39:28AM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> >
> > Well, I think that it would be better if hGetBuf didn't block if all
> > requested data was already in buffer, but I don't insist on
> it. However
> > this change of semantics can brake existing programs.
>
> I am mixin
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:39:28AM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
>
> Well, I think that it would be better if hGetBuf didn't block if all
> requested data was already in buffer, but I don't insist on it. However
> this change of semantics can brake existing programs.
I am mixing things again:
Th
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:26:02AM -, Simon Marlow wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:53:50PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:44:58PM +0100, George Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems to work when I change hGetBuf to
> > hGetBufNonBlocking. The name
> > >
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:53:50PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:44:58PM +0100, George Russell wrote:
> >
> > It seems to work when I change hGetBuf to
> hGetBufNonBlocking. The name
> > is a bit misleading - the action _does_ wait for some data,
> but it doesn
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:53:50PM +0100, Tomasz Zielonka wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:44:58PM +0100, George Russell wrote:
>
> It seems to work when I change hGetBuf to hGetBufNonBlocking. The name
> is a bit misleading - the action _does_ wait for some data, but it doesn't
> wait for all
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:44:58PM +0100, George Russell wrote:
>
> (b) The server module only gets part of the data. In fact for me it comes
> to a stop
> with
> [239][240][241][242][243Iterating
> despite there being more data to come. (And despite the fact that the
> client has
> done hFlus
