[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? http://www.lonelycactus.com/uploaded_images/test[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'.
-Mike