Libxo bugs and fixes.

[Alfred Perlstein]

> On Jan 4, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Phil Shafer <phil at juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Alfred Perlstein writes:
>> I think we REALLY want to have the fflush be a callback offered by libxo, otherwise the 
>> layering violations are pretty difficult to deal with.  Consider if libxo is outputting 
>> to a non-stdio buffer, then what is the paradigm?  Is it not better to give libxo a "flu
>> sh" callback and have that exposed via the xop interface?
> 
> The problem is divining when to flush.  If you are whiffling thru a list,
> does the app want to flush after each list member, or when the complete
> list is done.
> 
> Or maybe you are just looking at the case when pretty output
> is made to the terminal?

I am more thinking of the case where you pass a libxo handle down to a subsystem that shouldn't have to know if it is a studio object or not. 

Consider the code sample you gave me, but instead of using the handleless version xo_flush() you are writing a routine that takes a handle so instead you would be calling xo_flush_h(). 

In the case of xo_flush_h() how does a subroutine know how to flush the backing object of the handle?

-ap