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)

Re: binary vs non-binary ports Per Bothner 18 Sep 2004 16:31 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/