[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports |
Date: |
Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:38:30 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) |
Hi!
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
> SRFI-6 (string ports) says nothing about port encodings, and yet
> portable code written for SRFI-6 will fail on Guile 2.0 unless the
> string is constrained to whatever the default port encoding happens to
> be. This is not just a theoretical issue; it has caused trouble in
> practice, e.g.:
>
> http://bugs.gnu.org/11197
Hey, there’s a patch for SRFI-6 there. Could we resume the discussion
in that bug?
Guile ports are mixed textual/binary ports. Whether this or separate
binary/textual ports as in R6 is best is an interesting question, but as
you note, we cannot really change that currently.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports,
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports, David Kastrup, 2012/06/01
- Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/06/01
- Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports, Mark H Weaver, 2012/06/01
- Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/06/02
- Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports, David Kastrup, 2012/06/02
- Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports, Daniel Krueger, 2012/06/03
- Separate textual/binary ports vs. mixed ports, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/06/03
- Re: Separate textual/binary ports vs. mixed ports, Daniel Krueger, 2012/06/05
- Re: Separate textual/binary ports vs. mixed ports, Noah Lavine, 2012/06/05
- Re: Separate textual/binary ports vs. mixed ports, Ludovic Courtès, 2012/06/05