[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why are byte ports "ports" as such?
Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
READ-CHAR must conceptually be built on top of READ-CODEPOINT, which in
turn must conceptually be built on top of READ-BYTE. From our experience
in BitC, it appears to be the case that READ-CODEPOINT is sufficient for
implementation of the compiler/interpreter, and READ-CHAR can therefore
be implemented as a library procedure.
What is the use-case for read-char, as you define it?
What is the use-case for a "character" data type that is
*not* a codepoint data type?