Got it. Thanks. On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 3:45 PM Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAE8gKofs0PPHs9mUmSgudMZsqaUEOpV6CCzRB7D3kwZyFXartg%40mail.gmail.com.
