On 13 Jun 2023, at 21:35, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) Read/write are typically used to exchange data (in a textual > format). This SRFI does not provide a way to exchange unreadable > objects between different implementations. This entire idea was a non-starter, in my view. > 6) The usefulness of the SRFI is not yet clear to me. Me neither. I continue to lean towards withdrawal as the best option, although I think a cut down version/hybrid of this version and the original could be useful, if it standardized all of: 1. #< being a sequence which signals an error when read, probably with no recovery mechanism, though I kind of like the idea of ‘stand-in objects’ 2. unreadable-object? as a predicate when called on an object which would be unreadable (i.e. generate a #<) if it were fed to write 3. the R6RS errors with appropriate places in the condition hierarchy Daphne
