Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!boring!jack
From: jack@boring.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pascal IO
Message-ID: <6335@boring.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 08:52:11 EST
Article-I.D.: boring.6335
Posted: Wed Feb 27 08:52:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 20:49:28 EST
References: <8630@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: jack@boring.UUCP (Jack Jansen)
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 25
Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL

In article <8630@brl-tgr.ARPA> cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA quotes a
part of my article to show that pascal I/O is braindamaged :
>Jack Jansen writes...
>> I'm sick and tired of delaying all my readln()s until I've
>> printed my next prompt, and checking each read() whether it should
>> be preceded by a readln() because there's still a newline
>> lingering in my buffer.
>> -- 
> 
Although I did write this, I think that it is *not* very decent to
try and prove your point by quoting things out of context.

What I said in the ~30 lines before this fragment is that it *is*
feasible to implement a good I/O system in pascal (usually referred
to as "lazy I/O"), and that I would like to see that implemented
by everyone.
I'm sick and tired of lazy implementors who don't implement
lazy I/O, and of lazy netters, who don't read all of a posting
before using pieces of it to "prove" *their* point.

Final-Statement: I like pascal-I/O, *AS LONG AS IT IS DECENTLY
	IMPLEMENTED*.
-- 
	Jack Jansen, {decvax|philabs|seismo}!mcvax!jack
Notice new, improved, faster address         ^^^^^