Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (16 Feb 2020 08:03 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (16 Feb 2020 14:01 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (21 Feb 2020 23:24 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (22 Feb 2020 19:19 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Vincent Manis (17 Feb 2020 23:04 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (18 Feb 2020 17:51 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (18 Feb 2020 18:22 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (19 Feb 2020 12:42 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (19 Feb 2020 18:11 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (19 Feb 2020 18:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (19 Feb 2020 18:17 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Lassi Kortela (19 Feb 2020 18:30 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Arthur A. Gleckler (19 Feb 2020 18:51 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Vincent Manis (19 Feb 2020 22:57 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 12:36 UTC)
u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 12:46 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 13:09 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 13:30 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 14:48 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:07 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 15:13 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:31 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 Mar 2020 15:39 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:49 UTC)
SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:08 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:13 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 16:18 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:26 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 16:28 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 16:46 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 17:03 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes John Cowan (04 Mar 2020 23:23 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Marc Feeley (05 Mar 2020 13:08 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 20:44 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Göran Weinholt (05 Mar 2020 22:16 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 22:22 UTC)
Re: SRFI 18 implementation status - R5RS/R7RS Schemes Arthur A. Gleckler (04 Mar 2020 19:26 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 15:07 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 15:31 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 15:32 UTC)
Waiting on custom ports / CL Gray Streams Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 15:41 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? John Cowan (04 Mar 2020 17:18 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Lassi Kortela (04 Mar 2020 17:26 UTC)
Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley (04 Mar 2020 14:55 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 19:31 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 00:36 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports Jim Rees (05 Mar 2020 21:53 UTC)
Re: SRFI 181: Custom ports John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 22:08 UTC)

Re: u8-ready? and char-ready? Marc Feeley 04 Mar 2020 15:31 UTC

> On Mar 4, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:
>
>> I think the I/O methods should be extended with the following features
>> 1) a “transfer up to N bytes/characters that are currently available” method that returns the number of bytes/characters that have been transferred (0 when nothing is available)
>> 2) a “transfer at least N bytes/characters” method with an optional timeout parameter indicating how long to wait for N bytes to become available, and return the number of bytes transferred
>> These could probably be combined in the same method with many parameters.
>
> Are you suggesting these for SRFI 181 specifically, or for Scheme in general?
>

It is a dream that Scheme have such a feature, but it really requires threads to maximize their usefulness so I’m not sure which RnRS we’re talking about.  Perhaps it is time to think about adding SRFI 18 to Scheme… it has seen close to 20 years of experience in the field and is supported by many implementations of Scheme.

Marc