[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Marc Feeley scripsit:
> >The SRFI should explicitly permit implementation-dependent encodings
> >and eol-encodings. (XML 1.1 allows CR, LF, CR/LF, NEL=U+0085, and
> What do you mean by "explicitly permit"? In general an
> implementation can extend an API any way it wishes! The spec is only
> a requirement.
Well, the informal BNF could be read as requiring that a conforming
implementation accept these values and no others. Two sentences of
the form "Other values may be accepted by conforming implementations"
> It only depends on u8vectors which are common in SRFI 4 and SRFI 66.
> SRFI 66 has things that SRFI 4 does not have, and vice versa. I
> could add a reference to SRFI 66 though.
> I'll add something in the preamble saying:
> The tokens of the form ``foo:'' used in this document will be
> called ``keywords''.
> On Scheme implementations supporting SRFI 88, these keywords
> correspond to the
> keyword objects specified in that SRFI. On Scheme
> implementations which do not
> support SRFI 88, these keywords are symbols.
Which is as much as to say that they need to be quoted on non-SRFI-88
systems, as your followup notes. This is always a safe strategy,
since a quoted keyword evaluates to itself.
Keywords are controversial (if nobody else, I am making controversy
about them!), and this otherwise satisfactory SRFI should not, IMHO,
depend on their presence.
In my last lifetime, John Cowan
I believed in reincarnation; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in this lifetime, firstname.lastname@example.org
I don't. --Thiagi