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.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Michael Sperber wrote: > The more I think about it, the more I like it. There are two > downsides: > > - The last vestige of R5RS compatibility goes out the window. Does > anyone care? I don't. > - This SRFI is then no longer suitable for ad-hoc debugging output > (which, I think, provides the rationale for CURRENT-OUTPUT-PORT). As I suggested, slots in the dynamic environment could be added for ports with more specifically meaningful applications; e.g., there could be a DEBUG-OUTPUT-PORT added. But as it is the current input & output ports are not specifically intended for random debugging output, or I've seen them misused a great deal, and even if they were that would be hardly reason enough for the havoc wrought on signature consistency for them (not to mention an unclear name).