binary vs non-binary ports
Per Bothner
(16 Sep 2004 04:51 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Alex Shinn
(16 Sep 2004 05:34 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Per Bothner
(16 Sep 2004 06:54 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Alex Shinn
(16 Sep 2004 07:26 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Shiro Kawai
(16 Sep 2004 08:30 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Alex Shinn
(17 Sep 2004 03:43 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Alex Shinn
(17 Sep 2004 05:32 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Per Bothner
(17 Sep 2004 17:22 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Shiro Kawai
(17 Sep 2004 20:44 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema
(17 Sep 2004 21:26 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Alex Shinn
(18 Sep 2004 02:15 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports Per Bothner (18 Sep 2004 16:31 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Bradd W. Szonye
(18 Sep 2004 17:43 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Per Bothner
(18 Sep 2004 19:51 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema
(18 Sep 2004 18:04 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Bradd W. Szonye
(18 Sep 2004 19:21 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Alex Shinn
(20 Sep 2004 02:06 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Per Bothner
(20 Sep 2004 02:46 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Alex Shinn
(18 Sep 2004 02:21 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Per Bothner
(18 Sep 2004 20:04 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema
(17 Sep 2004 21:37 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema
(17 Sep 2004 22:40 UTC)
|
Re: binary vs non-binary ports
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema
(17 Sep 2004 22:48 UTC)
|
Hans Oesterholt-Dijkema wrote: > I think, one should not interfere with the creative process of > software engineers by limiting the possibilities of the language > at hand. I get nervous when I hear about the "creative process of software engineers". > 2. In the protocol of many instant messengers, both text and > binary protocols are mixed. To communicate a ZIP file, binary > protocol is used, to communicate (meta) information, text > protocol is used. Well, yes. The points I'm making are: * One layers text i/o on top of binary i/o. * A SRFI for binary i/o has to specify how to open a file in "binary mode". * Portable programs cannot assume they can do binary i/o on ports opened in the default character mode, unless we make unreasonable demands on implementors. * Reading/writing characters/strings from/to character mode ports is tricky. * Most file formats that mix text and binary i/o do *not* handle general strings: often they only support whatever character encoding the "creative" engineers are most familiar with. * I/O APIs designed by people unfamiliar with internationalization issues often have problems in today's internationalized world. * A quick-and-dirty fix is often to specify that strings are in UTF8. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/