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

Re: binary vs non-binary ports

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 56 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 56 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

At Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:44:14 -1000 (HST), Shiro Kawai wrote:
> [...] I feel character encoding conversion is much wider topic
> than the target of this srfi, so I'd rather suggest to leave it
> to another srfi.

Yes, I had intended to propose <encoding> as being an unspecified
encoding mechanism (just a placeholder), with the possible exception
of the "binary" encoding.  I definitely do not want to get into
character encoding issues in this SRFI.

> If people wish to have the means of ensuring a binary port in
> portable way, I'd rather have open-binary-{input|output}-file,
> which can be easily implemented on both (a) implementations that
> doesn't distinguish binary/character port, and (b) implementations
> that requires binary/character distinction at port creation.

I like open-binary-{input,output}-file better.  For completeness, if
we add this we also probably want the binary-port? and character-port?
predicates, though I don't suspect they will be used much any more
than people always check the result of input-port? before reading from
a port.