Michael Sperber wrote:
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I guess in theory one might be able to wrap a transcoder around a
custom binary port but that seems horribly wrong when there is no
underlying byte stream.
Why?
Most of believe that an API should avoid exposing the underlying
representation, for reasons we should all be familiar with.
Now you're proposing that we *pretend* there is an underlying
byte-sequence representation that doesn't exist, and then expose
this "virtual" underlying representation.
All I can say is "ick!".
If you think this is reasonable, at the very least you need to show us
(and the readers of R6RS) how : How would you implement
open-string-input-port in terms of make-custom-binary-input-port?
This should be something that an "ordinary person skilled in the art"
of writing Scheme can do.
--
--Per Bothner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://per.bothner.com/
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
