• Andrej Mitrovic <none none.none> Jan 08 2011
• Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> Jan 08 2011
• Christopher Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> Jan 09 2011
• Christopher Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> Jan 09 2011
• Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> Jan 09 2011
• Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> Jan 09 2011
• Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> Jan 08 2011

Andrej Mitrovic <none none.none> writes:

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(".........");

then I get each line printed out at the exact moment as this statement is
reached. Is this normal behavior? 

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:

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
application is done. If I use this:
 
 writeln(".........");
 
 then I get each line printed out at the exact moment as this statement is
reached. Is this normal behavior? 


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;

Christopher Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

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, instead it prints out everything at once when the
application is done. If I use this:

 writeln(".........");

 then I get each line printed out at the exact moment as this statement is
reached. Is this normal behavior? 


 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;
 


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(".....")?

-- Chris N-S

Christopher Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

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 on "to flush or not to flush" with regard to stdio functions, and
apparently it was decided not to have the non *ln routines flush.  Worth
noting in the documentation if it isn't already.

-- Chris N-S

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

On 1/9/11, Christopher Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> 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 string. So I converted these to
the safer writefln, but I got a different behavior when I compiled
compared to the C version.

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

*I meant I converted them to writef, not writefln, and got a different
behavior*. writefln works fine.

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

On 1/9/11, Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> 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.