Ben Goetter scripsit:
> Assuming that transcoders -- some specification of the relationship
> between binary and textual ports -- remain in small Scheme,
I suggested adding those to the R5RS base, but retracted the suggestion.
> I would also add two new constructors that create a new textual input or
> output port, given an existing binary port, a transcoder specification,
Per many previous postings, this is problematic unless (as in R6RS) the
binary port is made unavailable for further use.
> and (optionally) the number of octets to {consume from, emit to}
> that binary port.
What does that do?
> Since I want binary and textual ports to be disjoint types, I would
> also prefer to call binary ports something other than "binary port,"
Fine with me. Can list members offer any suggestions?
--
With techies, I've generally found John Cowan
If your arguments lose the first round http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Make it rhyme, make it scan [email protected]
Then you generally can
Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
