Andy Wingo scripsit: > Why not specify `close-port' instead of `close-input-port' and > `close-output-port' ? Is there any benefit that having two procedures > when one would do, except compatibility? (Because if it's simply for > compatibility, one can provide shims.)
Scheme isn't big on generic procedures, which is why we have length and vector-length and string-length and blob-length. Genericity is a Good Thing, but just a little bit of it doesn't buy you much. We did add `port?`, but that's because it was mentioned in section 2.3 but not in section 6, leading to substantial uncertainty and differences between implementations. -- I marvel at the creature: so secret and John Cowan so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool [email protected] before our very window. Does he think that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Men sleep without watch all night? _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
