On Tue 14 Mar 2017 16:03, taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > >> On Mon 13 Mar 2017 19:10, taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich >> "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes: >> >>> If I do binary I/O, the following situations are possible: >>> >>> 1. I'm guaranteed to get any possible bytes that happen to form a valid >>> BOM at the start of the stream as-is in the returned bytevector; the >>> binary I/O interface doesn't see such bytes as anything special, as >>> it could simply be coincidence that the stream starts with such >>> bytes. >> >> (1). But I thought this bug was about using a bytevector as a source >> and then doing textual I/O on it, no? > > I have a feeling we're somehow talking past each other. :-) As far as > I'm concerned, the bug is just that the procedures don't conform to the > specification. > > It would of course be good if the behavior of these procedures was > somehow in harmony with the behavior of I/O operations, but I don't see > any issues arising from adopting the R6RS behavior of the procedures > utf16->string and utf32->string. Do you? Adopting the behavior is more or less fine. If it can be done while relying on the existing behavior, that is better than something ad-hoc in a module. Andy
