Hi Andreas,
Andreas Rottmann a.rottm...@gmx.at writes:
Well, I'm not advocating making them disjoint in the sense that the
textual or binary operations are only possible on matching ports.
Allowing to mix binary and textual I/O on any port, is, IMHO, a fine and
reasonable
On Mon 25 Apr 2011 16:08, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I wouldn’t want the “native” port type to be disjoint from the R6RS port
types, notably because there’s no “native” equivalent to the R6RS binary
I/O API, and also because it would hamper composition of R6RS and
non-R6RS code.
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Hi,
Andreas Rottmann a.rottm...@gmx.at writes:
- Ikarus and Ypsilon definitly have disjoint ports.
- Racket natively has ports that will accept both binary and textual
operations, but it's R6RS support wraps these ports so that the
resulting
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
However, I’m wondering whether we should not just
squarely do away with the binary/textual distinction
How would you handle port position? From R6RS[1]:
(port-has-port-position? port) procedure
(port-position port) procedure
The port-has-port-position?
Hi Marco,
Marco Maggi marco.maggi-i...@poste.it writes:
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
However, I’m wondering whether we should not just
squarely do away with the binary/textual distinction
How would you handle port position?
Currently port position is in bytes for all kinds of ports (info
Hi Andreas!
Andreas Rottmann a.rottm...@gmx.at writes:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...]
However, I’m wondering whether we should not just squarely do away with
the binary/textual distinction, and just write:
(define (binary-port? p) #t)
What do people with experience with
