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?

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;

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.

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

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.

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

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