Could be. I just hacked it in (slap wrist :-) )
> Otherwise it looks fine to me. (Could there be a problem that stdio
> does not want you to call setbuf when you've already done I/O?)
Yes, but this is the same for C programs.
> > Any chance of getting this into the OFFICIAL version (assuming it works
> > properly).
> I'd opt for an interface to setvbuf (without the silly magic
> constants). Something like these options is needed:
> - no buffering
> - line buffering
> - buffer of given size
> This could be done with a single integer parameter if we use a
> special value (e.g. -1) to mean line buffering.
Whatever you say. You're the BOSS :-).
Seriously, it sounds better as a parameter.
-- --------------------- ======================================================================== = = = Adrian Phillips at The Norwegian Meteorological Institute = = = = BUT any thoughts in this are purely my own and have nothing to do with = = this establishment, thankfully. = = = = Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org = = Phone: 47 22 96 32 09 = = Fax: 47 22 96 30 50 = = = ========================================================================