No, we’re discussing to drop textual *bidirectional* ports. At least the one with a single position shared between input and output.

> On May 6, 2020, at 2:07 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>
> I think I am confused. Do you want to drop textual ports in Scheme?
>
> Aren't they distinguished from binary ports in that they handle
> strings (of characters) versus sequences of bytes? I wouldn't want to
> lose this distinction. This is insofar important if the local is not
> UTF-8. A textual input port must convert it into strings of Scheme
> characters (most likely UTF-8 encoded), while a binary port mustn't
> change anything.
>
> Marc
>
>> Am Mi., 6. Mai 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Shiro Kawai <xxxxxx@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:15 PM Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any valid use-case for textual input/output ports?  Do they make any sense?  I doubt it,
>>> certainly not enough to be in a Scheme standard.
>>
>>
>> Dunno.  R6RS has it, and srfi-181 inherits it.  I'd be happy if it is dropped.
>>
>> I think what one want is more like the two-way-stream in CL, which just pairs input and output stream and
>> nothing more.
>>
>>