2009/9/29 John Cowan <[email protected]>: > David Rush scripsit: >> ; and here's the kicker, where the semantics are a little funky >> (string->datum string k-success k-more k-error) ;=> datum >> > It certainly is interesting and clever, but (since you just made it > up, and it is not analogous to anything existing)
Ah, but in fact, it *is* highly related to R4RS IO. R4RS READ is almost trivially implementable using the API I specified. R4RS WRITE is similarly simple given adequate coverage of type->string functions. And because of the kontinuation interface on string->datum you get robust error recovery from malformed data streams for free while still having all the convenience of READ. > unfit for standardization, which should be fundamentally a conservative > activity. Indeed. But I consider this a classic example of the Clingerism (which, since it is tantamount to Godwin's law for Scheme language discussions, I will not quote herein :). By refactoring I/O I believe we will have a simpler, more robust interface that trivially implements pre-existing semantics. Sure we can have READ if you feel you need it, but READ's behavior should be defined in terms of the primitives I outlined. david -- And I did call it "inflammatory" I/O :) _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
