On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:39:38 -0500, Alex Shinn wrote
> At Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:00:15 +0200, Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema wrote:
>
> Hi, and welcome to the discussion.

Thank you.

>
> It would indeed be a logical next step from a given view of ports,
> however it's distinctly a _next_ step and I would rather a separate
> SRFI deal with this, especially as it's already 1 day past the draft
> period for SRFI-56.  I had considered this, and binary-typed ports,
> and mmaped ports, and univorm vector block reads, but all of these
> open a number of issues I'd rather not deal with.  Specifically with
> positioning/seeking primitives, apart from interface (POSIX vs.
> other) you have to deal with non-seekable ports, and are likely to
> get into simultaneous input/output ports.  Scheme still has a long
> way to go on its port API - for now it would be nice if, whatever
> those ports are, we can read or write a single byte to them.
>

I understand and respect this view. However, I myself am working
on a SFRI Proposal for Shared Memory access for which I want to use
the Scheme Port mechanism. I'm also running into the simultaneous
input/output ports problem and the positioning/seeking primitives.

Currently I'm borrowing some of these constructs from bigloo. For
Shared Memory access, a positioning primitive, I think, is really
mandatory.

> --
> Alex

--
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema