[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
On 13-Apr-06, at 1:54 PM, Ben Goetter wrote:
If you separate byte ports from character ports, and separate input
ports from output ports (at least at the API level), you get an
easily type-checked interface. e.g.
open-input-file string [encoding keywords] -> input-character-port
read-char input-char-port -> character
open-input-file-raw string -> input-byte-port
read-byte input-byte-port -> integer
After rereading this part of your message I think I may have
misunderstood you. Do you mean that the procedure's signatures
should explicit the type of port to indicate the type constraints?
That sounds like a good idea. I was just following the RnRS
tradition that uses:
procedure: (read-char port)
procedure: (write-char char port)
I.e. it does not distinguish input and output ports in the procedure