Hi,

Attached is an updated patch.  Ok to apply?

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

>> Besides, how about applying the change I originally proposed to HEAD?
>
> No, principally because unbuffered is an advertised feature.

Hey, it's only advertised as long as we advertise it!  ;-)

I mean, if we start nitpicking about such changes in HEAD, then we'll
never implement a Unicode-capable port I/O interface, will we?  :-)

> Even if
> it was year zero you'd probably still choose them to start unbuffered,
> since there's various ways to do comms and it can be up to an
> application how much might be desirable.  For block operations for
> instance it's certainly not wanted.

The thing is that port buffering in Guile does not necessarily have a
direct relationship to OS-level buffering.  This is clear for input,
where one can have unbuffered OS-level file descriptor and where
port-level input buffering only impacts performance, not semantics.
Conversely, port-level output buffering does have a visible impact from
the outside world.

Thanks for your comments!

Ludovic.