> 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:
>
> The change of hGetBuf's semantics happened between GHC 6.0 and 6.2.
> I thinks the semantics in 6.0 is more intuitive.
>
> Now we have hGetBufNonBlocking with the old semantics of hGetBuf.
> Wouldn't it be better to have hGetBuf with old semantics and
> hGetBufBlocking with the new one? This way we wouldn't break existing
> programs.
hGetBuf isn't supposed to have different semantics, although its
implementation changed considerably to optimise the case for small
reads. It's possible I made a mistake, I'm looking into it right now.
BTW George: there are plenty of 6.1.xxxxxxx snapshots available - these
are the 6.2 prereleases. We don't snapshot along the STABLE branch at
the moment; no real deep reason, we'd just have to figure out a version
numbering scheme, and this might upset various scripts that expect to
parse the GHC version number. Since you have to build from source
anyway, why not download the sources from CVS?
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-bugs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-bugs
