[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Sting abstraction 2

From: Mike Gran
Subject: Re: Sting abstraction 2
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 20:33:25 -0700

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 01:32 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

> > (Did I ever mention this backtrace tree
> > pic?[1]-765536.PNG 
> > It shows that for all the scripts the test suite, all of the calls to
> > low-level read and write pass through those two functions.)
> Nice.  I suppose you had breakpoints in GDB, captured the output of
> "bt", frobbed it and fed it to `dot'?
Pretty much.

> > I have changed my opinion on one issue. I don't believe that Guile
> > ports should have a specific encoding: they should just use the
> > locale.  This is just pragmatism.  Guile ports and the default reader
> > are annoying things to hack.  I am loathe to touch them more than is
> > necessary. 
> >
> > The R6RS ports have the nice transcoder idea.  It might be more fun to
> > push port-specific encodings to that library. 
> Are you saying that we'd have an implementation of the R6 port API that
> DTRT, whereas Guile's current API would remain encoding-oblivious?

I am thinking that the setlocale character encoding becomes the encoding
for all legacy Guile port IO, and if you want to operate on a port that
has a different locale than your setlocale character encoding, you need
to do that through an R6RS port.

> Thanks!
> Ludo'.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]