Michael Sperber scripsit: > Does "line for flushing upon line endings or other > implementation-defined separators and reading up to line endings or > other implementation-defined separators" work?
I'd rather go for "line for flushing upon line endings and reading up to line endings, or other implementation-dependent behavior. On some ports there simply will be no concept of a line ending; in other cases variable-sized buffering will be no more efficient than no buffering; in still other cases it will be impractical to change hardwired underlying assumptions like "line mode = LF only". > > I think it would be within editorial discretion to extend the license > > in 8.2.4 to provide implementation-dependent results on nonstandard > > eol-symbols to buffer-mode-symbols as well. > > That I don't think I can do. I wish the possibility of other buffer > modes had been suggested prior to the ratification candidate. I suppose you are right. In which case buffer-mode? is indeed just (lambda (s) (if (memq s '(none line block)) #t #f), which is rather foolish. Bah. -- There is / One art John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> No more / No less http://www.ccil.org/~cowan To do / All things With art- / Lessness -- Piet Hein _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
