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/