* Reply to msg originally in Personal Mail - David Muir

 -=> Quoting Peter Fitzsimmons to David Muir <=-

 DM>     The Basic functions included in that unit were originally made to 
 DM> duplicate an existing "DOS" unit (for easy porting).

 PF> There is no reason why your class (unit) can't have a "write
one byte"
 PF> routine;  what I am saying is that under the covers,  this should not
 PF> translate to a DosWrite() for 1 byte (calling the device driver, in
 PF> ring 0,  is what is expensive). 

    Now I understand what you're saying (I have my slow years ).
While "my" 
implementation of the unit would rarely ever need to consider this, I am 
certain that any implementation which used "more" output than me
typing on my 
keyboard could certainly benefit from a buffered state (perhaps buffering the 
byte for a "period of time" and sending via thread using a blockwrite of 
however many characters managed to make it into the "waiting to go" buffer 
after perhaps 200ms (or some reasonable time for this type of thread)).
    Thanks for the suggestion. I think this particular implementation 
basically just answers the common question "How do I do it" ,
where you are 
quite correctly answering "How do I do it `well'".

    Thanks again..

Dave...
~~~ TGWave v1.00 Beta-05g [NR]
--- GEcho 1.11+