[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Encodings.

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 52 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 52 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

I'll plead ignorance of mainframe OS historical idiosyncrasies.

(but observe IBM's aggressively making progress on hosting linux on 390's)

> From: "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:04:01 -0800
> To: srfi-52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Encodings.
> Resent-From: srfi-52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:04:11 +0100 (NFT)
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 09:19:21PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
>> From the best I can tell, there is no difference between opening a
>> file using C's fopen function in binary mode or text mode, with the
>> exception Of local conversion of new-line marker character(s) in VMS,
>> MS-whatever, UNIX, MAC, etc.; both can be read/written logically
>> sequentially ....
> Yes, the "text is filtered binary stream" abstraction is very common.
> But it is not universal. It is not true on MVS, for example. (When I
> wrote "VMS" earlier, it was a typo for "MVS.") Indeed, it's partly
> because of systems like MVS that C makes the distinction between text
> and binary mode. If you insist on forcing that abstraction into Scheme
> standards, then you make it impossible to sensibly implement Scheme on
> many mainframe computers and anything else where that abstraction is
> invalid.
> -- 
> Bradd W. Szonye
> http://www.szonye.com/bradd