On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:31:35 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 6/14/2013 1:02 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think in the end, we are optimizing here in the wrong place. If a
specific
hardware/software combination requires specific buffering, the place to
handle
it is in the runtime, not code on top of it. If the C runtime that D
uses isn't
up to snuff, let's use a different scheme, or abandon it all together
*for that
specific device*.
There's simply no reason to do that. There has been a fix proposed that
not only solves the problem correctly (your solution is incomplete), it
does not require any improvements to the underlying C runtime.
This doesn't fix the "problem" of when someone calls
fflush(stdout);
In their code somewhere. Your contention is this messes up all the writes
beyond that. If that is such a problem, we should avoid using such a
problematic library. We are after all, in control of the D runtime.
But my argument is purposely ad absurdum, because it clearly is not a
problem for any systems that exist today (as evidence shows). You are
arguing unproven hypotheses about systems that are long dead with no hope
of running D code. I respectfully bow out to work on more important
things.
-Steve
