This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 68 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 68 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
The Imperative I/O layer of SRFI 68 already deviates from R5RS in some aspects, such as the absence of a distinct EOF object. Taylor Campbell has suggested making the naming more regular, which would rename a number of identifiers from what they are in R5RS. This raises the general question of how important R5RS compatibility is in this area. My own personal sense is that most I/O-bound programs aren't portable anyway, because R5RS doesn't provide near enough functionality, so they have to resort to implementation-specific abstractions. (Moreover, a R5RS compatibility layer would be trivial to implement on top of SRFI 68.) This would imply that R5RS compatibility shouldn't be a primary concern here. It'd nice to have some sense of what the community thinks on this issue---any input would be much appreciated. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla