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

Re: Specification vs. Implementation

To: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Specification vs. Implementation
From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:24:39 +0200
Cc: srfi-68@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-68@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5fb7e0870508221948311ded7f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Alex Shinn's message of "Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:48:14 +0900")
References: <5fb7e0870508221948311ded7f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) XEmacs/21.5-b21 (berkeley-unix)

Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> SRFI-68 provides an implementation as its specification.  The
> implementation is fully transparent, in that from a port object you can
> access the underlying stream, and from a stream you can access the
> underlying reader or writer primitive.

That was the case in the beginning, but I dropped transparency two
revisions ago, precisely because of what you argue.  Please check
again.  Is it better now?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Specification vs. Implementation
  - From: Alex Shinn

References:
- Specification vs. Implementation
  - From: Alex Shinn

Prev by Date: Re: finalize or withdraw?
Next by Date: Re: finalize or withdraw?
Previous by thread: Specification vs. Implementation
Next by thread: Re: Specification vs. Implementation
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread