Antoniotti Marco <antoniotti.ma...@disco.unimib.it> writes: > On Apr 11, 2014, at 22:18 , Bob Cassels <bobcass...@netscape.net> wrote: > >> Because this is a binary write, not a character write. It has >> nothing to do with Unicode or anything else. Unless the original >> problem has to do with writing UCS-2 or UTF-16, but there was >> nothing in the original question that had anything to do with >> characters, other than the incorrect use of write-char to write a >> binary value. > > I understand that my original message was not on spot. In fact I > changed the subject line in my response… The issue, in any case, > appears to be the handling of characters nevertheless. Maybe Paul can > clarify what he was really trying to do. > > In any case… I am the only person who thinks that a “sub-standard” on > these issues may be a Good Thing?
What could be a good thing is a partial standardization of :external-format. But I'd say that a standardization of the semantics of pathnames (including logical pathnames) on posix system would be more urgent. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ "Le mercure monte ? C'est le moment d'acheter !" _______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro