Abdulaziz Ghuloum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Apr 4, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Michael Sperber wrote: > >> Now, I realize this isn't explicitly covered in the spec, but >> shouldn't >> an implementation flush open ports upon exit? This is pretty >> widespread >> practice both in Scheme and other languages, and at least the examples >> seem to imply that this was the intention. > > If it's not specified explicitly, I would leave it to R7RS.
I probably wasn't clear: I assume you noticed the problem when running the example on Ikarus, which, last time I looked, indeed didn't flush. I'll fix the example, but it's an easy mistake to make for a programmer (as I did), especially for one who starts out using an implementation that does flush, and those programs, even though strictly not portable, will break needlessly. So I'm encouraging you (and other implementors) to auto-flush. > I ran into some corner cases when I tried to do this. What happens > for example if you try to flush a port but an IO error occurs? Can > an exception be raised between the time you exit (explicitly or > implicitly) and the time the process actually exists? One can argue > either way I think. I agree. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
