This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 106 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 106 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On 30/06/2013 17:47, Per Bothner wrote: > For an input/output port there are two positions - because there are > actually two separate ports.I disagree with this. It seems the point is mixed up with Java's problem and how port should be. IMO input/output port doesn't have to (or even must not) have two positions and it is one port. (At least I implemented it like this in Sagittarius.)
> One could so that, but that means causes compatibility problems with > the Java I/O classes. InputStream/OutputStream/Reader/Writer are > all classes, not interfaces, so you can't multiply inherit them.IMO this is a big mistake of Java. (well this is not the topic what I want to discuss but just wanted to say.)
> Obviously it is possible to implement InputOutputPort in Java, > as you show. (I had to make some contortions to deal with binary > ports.)However, the concept is inherently bogus, so it would be > a mistake to do so.If Java's stream and Scheme's port are the same yes, but if it's different I don't think so, and I think (at least with this case) it should be different because of the Java's limitation. And I believe converting port to stream (or reader/writer) is not so difficult.
> If you want an object that bundles both an input port and an > output port, then use the socket directly. That is what > C# does - it doesn't even let you (directly) get the two > streams, but you call Send/Receive directly on the Socket.For this, removing 'socket-port' is an option. As long as implementations support custom port, then converting socket to port is not so difficult. The purpose of this procedure is actually convenience and reducing implementation dependent layer.
_/_/ Takashi Kato E-mail: ktakashi@xxxxxxxxx