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 20:04 UTC

Shiro Kawai wrote:

> There are some implementations that already extend
> open-{input|output}-file, so I'm afraid that this extention
> would conflict with them.  Cf:
> http://www.shiro.dreamhost.com/scheme/wiliki/schemexref.cgi/open-input-file
> http://www.shiro.dreamhost.com/scheme/wiliki/schemexref.cgi/open-output-file

My proposed extension doesn't really conflict with these, certainly not
any more than they conflict with otyjer.

> Besides, I feel character encoding conversion is much wider topic
> than the target of this srfi, so I'd rather suggest to leave it
> to another srfi.

That why I suggest just a encoding name.
>
> If people wish to have the means of ensuring a binary port in
> portable way, I'd rather have open-binary-{input|output}-file,
> which can be easily implemented on both (a) implementations that
> doesn't distinguish binary/character port, and (b) implementations
> that requires binary/character distinction at port creation.

That does that advantage that it doesn't need existing core
library code to be modifed.  Plus it may be better "typed"
if binary ports have du=iffernt types than character ports.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/