On 01/09/11 06:52, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> *I meant I converted them to writef, not writefln, and got a different
> behavior*. writefln works fine.
Okay, gotcha. I'll agree that the behavioral change is unexpected (when
coming from C). I believe there was actually a long discussion a while
back
*I meant I converted them to writef, not writefln, and got a different
behavior*. writefln works fine.
On 1/9/11, Christopher Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> What Jesse said, but also: I can't help wondering if there's a special
> reason why you cannot (or would rather not) use writefln(".")?
>
Oh it's not a problem. I was converting some C code and it used
printf's with embedded newlines in the stri
On 01/08/11 17:03, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I can't provide a simple test case, but I have a case where
>> using:
>>
>> writef("..\n");
>>
>> inside a loop that runs a dozen times does not print out each line as the
>> statement is reached, instea
On 1/9/11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> I don't think new line means to flush the buffer like it does in printf. I
> think you can use stdout.flush() from stdio;
>
Ok, that works. Thanks.
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> Unfortunately I can't provide a simple test case, but I have a case where
> using:
>
> writef("..\n");
>
> inside a loop that runs a dozen times does not print out each line as the
> statement is reached, instead it prints out everything at once when the
> app
Unfortunately I can't provide a simple test case, but I have a case where using:
writef("..\n");
inside a loop that runs a dozen times does not print out each line as the
statement is reached, instead it prints out everything at once when the
application is done. If I use this:
writeln
