current input & output ports
Taylor Campbell
(17 Jun 2005 01:32 UTC)
|
Re: current input & output ports
Alex Shinn
(17 Jun 2005 01:51 UTC)
|
Re: current input & output ports Taylor Campbell (17 Jun 2005 04:46 UTC)
|
Re: current input & output ports
Per Bothner
(17 Jun 2005 06:46 UTC)
|
Re: current input & output ports
Michael Sperber
(17 Jun 2005 21:23 UTC)
|
Re: current input & output ports
Taylor Campbell
(17 Jun 2005 23:53 UTC)
|
Re: current input & output ports
bear
(19 Jun 2005 18:51 UTC)
|
Re: current input & output ports Taylor Campbell 17 Jun 2005 04:55 UTC
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Alex Shinn wrote: > How do you propose to give access to stdin and stdout? Those are two very Unix-centric resources, which is not something I'd like to see Scheme standardized on except in an interface specifically to Unix, such as a scsh SRFI. (Note, by the way, that there are STANDARD-INPUT-WRITER & STANDARD-INPUT-READER already.) However, my complaint is more with the mechanism of a global 'current input port' & 'current output port' afforded special status among the I/O system so much so as, for example, to destroy useful argument conventions; as I suggested, there could still be items in the dynamic environment used for things like terminal interaction ports, or, in a hypothetical Unix interface, stdin & stdout ports. (T, for instance, worked in the way I suggest; it still provided access to stdio ports via settable procedures STANDARD-INPUT & STANDARD-OUTPUT as well as potentially separate terminal ports with TERMINAL-INPUT & TERMINAL-OUTPUT. The I/O-related procedures all required their first arguments to be ports, except in a couple cases (like PRINT, where the object being printed could specialize itself); there was no general 'current input port' or 'current output port.')