From: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
To: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer")
Cc: 26058@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#26058: utf16->string and utf32->string don't conform to R6RS
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:44:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877f3r7ti2.fsf@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87d1djzysb.fsf@gmail.com> ("Taylan Ulrich \"Bayırlı/Kammer\""'s message of "Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:03:00 +0100")
On Tue 14 Mar 2017 16:03, taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon 13 Mar 2017 19:10, taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>>
>>> If I do binary I/O, the following situations are possible:
>>>
>>> 1. I'm guaranteed to get any possible bytes that happen to form a valid
>>> BOM at the start of the stream as-is in the returned bytevector; the
>>> binary I/O interface doesn't see such bytes as anything special, as
>>> it could simply be coincidence that the stream starts with such
>>> bytes.
>>
>> (1). But I thought this bug was about using a bytevector as a source
>> and then doing textual I/O on it, no?
>
> I have a feeling we're somehow talking past each other. :-) As far as
> I'm concerned, the bug is just that the procedures don't conform to the
> specification.
>
> It would of course be good if the behavior of these procedures was
> somehow in harmony with the behavior of I/O operations, but I don't see
> any issues arising from adopting the R6RS behavior of the procedures
> utf16->string and utf32->string. Do you?
Adopting the behavior is more or less fine. If it can be done while
relying on the existing behavior, that is better than something ad-hoc
in a module.
Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-14 15:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-11 12:19 bug#26058: utf16->string and utf32->string don't conform to R6RS "Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer"
2017-03-13 13:03 ` Andy Wingo
2017-03-13 18:10 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
2017-03-13 21:24 ` Andy Wingo
2017-03-14 15:03 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
2017-03-14 15:44 ` Andy Wingo [this message]
2017-03-16 19:34 ` Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
2018-10-15 4:57 ` Mark H Weaver
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877f3r7ti2.fsf@pobox.com \
--to=wingo@pobox.com \
--cc=26058@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=taylanbayirli@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).