John Cowan wrote:
> 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?
>
>
Assuming that transcoders -- some specification of the relationship
between binary and textual ports -- remain in small Scheme, I would also
add two new constructors that create a new textual input or output port,
given an existing binary port, a transcoder specification, and
(optionally) the number of octets to {consume from, emit to} that binary
port.
Since I want binary and textual ports to be disjoint types, I would also
prefer to call binary ports something other than "binary port," both to
shorten some overly long identifiers and to minimize confusion with the
classic text emitting/accepting port values of yore. Call them "binary"
or call them "raw" or call them "Lucille," anything that doesn't suggest
that port operations work on them. input-binary? output-raw?
open-port-from-input-Lucille open-port-to-output-Lucille etc.
Ben
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
