[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: thoughts on ports

From: Noah Lavine
Subject: Re: thoughts on ports
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:21:29 -0400


On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Mike Gran <address@hidden> wrote:
> Anyway, here's an idea.  Let's call the C code for ports 'base ports'.
> 1. Refactor the C reader so that it took on the responsibility of
> storing the putbacked (ungotton?) characters.
> 2. This would let you simplify the base ports to make read, write,
> and unget into those operations that the underlying device could
> provide.  During bootstrap, a read-only base file port would error on
> unget, for example.  Base ports would not longer have pushback buffers.
> There would be no such thing as string base ports since they aren't
> a device.
> 3. Then you could get through bootstrap and create scheme ports on top
> of the base port primitives.

Would it be possible to make this simpler (at least for now) by
changing steps 1 and 2 as follows?

1. Refactor ports code so read, write, unget are separate operations
with Scheme interfaces (where supported).

2. Define the standard Scheme port type in C, using the
read/write/unget primitives, so that the C reader can use it during

That gives you the flexibility of having the primitives around, but
lets you avoid the rewrite of the C reader.


reply via email to

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