Ben Goetter scripsit:
> It would not aggrieve me at all if WITH-foo-FILE and CALL-WITH-foo-FILE
> were not duplicated for binary input in the Standard.
In ISLisp, and in Henry Baker's DIN Lisp critique, which I suspect
influenced it, macros like these are the only way to open ports, giving
them dynamic rather than indefinite extent, which is often an advantage.
Open and close are rather low-level and messy. This consideration has
less weight in Scheme, however, because of interactions with call/cc.
> We have one object, the binary port. It admits one set of procedures
> (read-u8 et al) that accept or return one type of value (small exact
> integers). We then have another object, the textual port, that admits
> another set of procedures (read-char et al) and returns another type of
> value (chars and char aggregates).
So, you're proposing in addition to {read,write,peek}-u8 and
maybe the port-position procedures, to add only these:
open-binary-input-file, open-binary-output-file,
binary-input-port?, binary-output-port?
Is that correct?
--
We are lost, lost. No name, no business, no Precious, nothing. Only empty.
Only hungry: yes, we are hungry. A few little fishes, nassty bony little
fishes, for a poor creature, and they say death. So wise they are; so just,
so very just. --Gollum [email protected] http://ccil.org/~cowan
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
