[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: binary-port?
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: binary-port? |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Apr 2011 15:03:01 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110015 (No Gnus v0.15) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Marco,
Marco Maggi <address@hidden> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>>>> However, I’m wondering whether we should not just
>>>> squarely do away with the binary/textual distinction
>
> How would you handle port position?
Currently port position is in bytes for all kinds of ports (info
"(guile) Random Access"). It seems to be a valid implementation of R6
port positions, no?
[...]
> IMHO this R6 statement:
>
> (textual-port? port) procedure
> (binary-port? port) procedure
>
> The textual-port? procedure returns #t if port is
> textual, and returns #f otherwise. The binary-port?
> procedure returns #t if port is binary, and returns #f
> otherwise.
>
> should be enough to derive that:
>
> (cond ((binary-port? p)
> ---)
> ((textual-port? p)
> ---))
>
> and:
>
> (cond ((textual-port? p)
> ---)
> ((binary-port? p)
> ---))
>
> must be equivalent; if they are not, confusion arises
> because of violation of the rule of least surprise.
Yes, and that’s a problem.
OTOH, what I wonder is when in practice would you need to use such an
idiom, or to use these predicates at all?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
- binary-port?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/04/22
- Re: binary-port?, Andreas Rottmann, 2011/04/22
- Re: binary-port?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/04/23
- Re: binary-port?, Andreas Rottmann, 2011/04/25
- Re: binary-port?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/04/25
- Re: binary-port?, Andy Wingo, 2011/04/25
- Re: binary-port?, Andreas Rottmann, 2011/04/25
- Re: binary-port?, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/04/26