[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Separate textual/binary ports vs. mixed ports

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: Separate textual/binary ports vs. mixed ports
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:45:47 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux)


Daniel Krueger <address@hidden> skribis:

> If you have it mixed you can do some, say hacking, where you see it
> works but you can't see anywhere what you're exactly doing, most of it
> is hidden in the guile implementation, which interprets
> %default-port-conversion-strategy and gives you the coding. In one
> case you maybe rely on %default-port-conversion-strategy normally
> being UTF-8 and then someone sets it to something else, which could
> give some hard to track errors.

(You mean %default-port-encoding, right?)

I think this is an argument against %default-port-encoding, because the
“clarity” problem described here applies just the same for purely
textual ports.

> I think explicity just makes code much clearer and I think seperating
> textual and binary ports leads to more explicity, that's my point of
> view..

Yeah, I understand the idea, but I’m not sure how it translates to
concrete use cases.  ;-)

Thanks for your feedback!


reply via email to

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