On 8/19/05, Matthias Radestock <xxxxxx@sorted.org> wrote:

Hi, thanks for the detailed comments on SISC.

> SISC's character i/o is unicode-based. That makes the byte i/o
> operations in the reference implementation behave incorrectly. SISC does
> support binary i/o, and it is necessary (and possible, but not as easy
> as it should be) to implement these operations in terms of that.

I was using SISC's binary I/O procedures assuming that would make
read-char etc. behave on octet values (Latin-1).  This was necessary
to pass the integer tests, which failed before.  Is this the wrong approach?
I don't see how the integer tests could have passed if read-char was
assuming any other encoding.

--
Alex