|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 02:18 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(13 Feb 2004 03:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 05:59 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(13 Feb 2004 06:36 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 08:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Robby Findler
(13 Feb 2004 15:01 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 17:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 18:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Robby Findler
(16 Feb 2004 01:03 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(16 Feb 2004 03:21 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(16 Feb 2004 04:18 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Robby Findler
(16 Feb 2004 04:33 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
bear
(13 Feb 2004 17:40 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Per Bothner
(13 Feb 2004 18:34 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 19:02 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(13 Feb 2004 19:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 19:48 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Per Bothner
(13 Feb 2004 19:11 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 19:44 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
bear
(13 Feb 2004 21:42 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(13 Feb 2004 21:54 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 23:45 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(14 Feb 2004 00:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
bear
(14 Feb 2004 01:06 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(14 Feb 2004 01:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(14 Feb 2004 02:35 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(14 Feb 2004 03:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(14 Feb 2004 03:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(14 Feb 2004 03:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(14 Feb 2004 03:29 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(14 Feb 2004 02:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(14 Feb 2004 03:04 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings. Paul Schlie (14 Feb 2004 03:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(14 Feb 2004 03:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 22:41 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(13 Feb 2004 17:55 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Paul Schlie
(13 Feb 2004 18:42 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Bradd W. Szonye
(13 Feb 2004 18:53 UTC)
|
|
Re: Encodings.
Ken Dickey
(13 Feb 2004 21:53 UTC)
|
|
RESET [was Re: Encodings]
Ken Dickey
(14 Feb 2004 16:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: RESET [was Re: Encodings]
bear
(14 Feb 2004 18:02 UTC)
|
|
Re: RESET [was Re: Encodings]
Bradd W. Szonye
(14 Feb 2004 19:38 UTC)
|
I'll plead ignorance of mainframe OS historical idiosyncrasies. (but observe IBM's aggressively making progress on hosting linux on 390's) > From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <xxxxxx@szonye.com> > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:04:01 -0800 > To: xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org > Subject: Re: Encodings. > Resent-From: xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org > Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:04:11 +0100 (NFT) > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:19:21PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote: >> From the best I can tell, there is no difference between opening a >> file using C's fopen function in binary mode or text mode, with the >> exception Of local conversion of new-line marker character(s) in VMS, >> MS-whatever, UNIX, MAC, etc.; both can be read/written logically >> sequentially .... > > Yes, the "text is filtered binary stream" abstraction is very common. > But it is not universal. It is not true on MVS, for example. (When I > wrote "VMS" earlier, it was a typo for "MVS.") Indeed, it's partly > because of systems like MVS that C makes the distinction between text > and binary mode. If you insist on forcing that abstraction into Scheme > standards, then you make it impossible to sensibly implement Scheme on > many mainframe computers and anything else where that abstraction is > invalid. > -- > Bradd W. Szonye > http://www.szonye.com/bradd >