[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How important is R5RS compatibility for I/O?
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:
> 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.
...as well, now, as making argument conventions more consistent
compared to those specified 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.
I fully agree here.