From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#26058: utf16->string and utf32->string don't conform to R6RS Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:44:37 +0100 Message-ID: <877f3r7ti2.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87o9x83t0f.fsf@gmail.com> <87shmhqqgd.fsf@pobox.com> <87h92xyrmr.fsf@gmail.com> <87bmt4rht1.fsf@pobox.com> <87d1djzysb.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1489506317 28240 195.159.176.226 (14 Mar 2017 15:45:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:45:17 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: 26058@debbugs.gnu.org To: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "=?UTF-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer?=") Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 14 16:45:12 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cnodM-0006qg-1z for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:45:12 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60224 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnodS-00077R-4Z for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:45:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50717) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnodI-00072s-AC for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:45:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnodC-0005wF-Nm for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:45:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57625) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnodC-0005vl-G8 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cnodC-0003eP-7b for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:45:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Andy Wingo Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:45:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26058 X-GNU-PR-Package: guile X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 26058-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B26058.148950628914002 (code B ref 26058); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:45:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 26058) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Mar 2017 15:44:49 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55824 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cnocz-0003dm-99 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:44:49 -0400 Original-Received: from pb-sasl2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.67]:61117 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cnocx-0003de-0P for 26058@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:44:47 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B72769A41; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:44:45 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=2rl2yPjxaVFR LSkS18fZn9sf/0U=; b=eqheqfFsGYyklliDztEWqodon2tZIzMyPubgJe6IP+BD 1ldIZT058R5Jls1OX0zm1ObsUr6SyHtiVOPbIsIr4qXlyBRZtIS8mv7aEtJIz05l KK3gX0zD2MdTsl8+vjvoCoZ7DRaETNLQmskiP9OoaMDs/lNkmRq2qYrNm+mFLeI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=q1Oe5T 1yKkM00Rk+gzXmA71b0T4GEGX1zzi3wkBRWJgsmufNtjPq4rKixZE/mQwH/pEMoY v/wU0y09JDnb7+8roSgftFUPl4GNnePdd6nHu6ak0nkXBb7+FgprqOhYCk3sb7dH zbmgjLcFNYcZ+wXBX6Nf/TVCewqSC9nbZI12s= Original-Received: from pb-sasl2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6574569A40; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:44:45 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from clucks (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6124969A3F; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:44:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87d1djzysb.fsf@gmail.com> ("Taylan Ulrich \"=?UTF-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer\?=""'s message of "Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:03:00 +0100") X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 25663666-08CD-11E7-AA15-85AB91A0D1B0-02397024!pb-sasl2.pobox.com X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-guile" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:8685 Archived-At: On Tue 14 Mar 2017 16:03, taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1= rl=C4=B1/Kammer") writes: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> On Mon 13 Mar 2017 19:10, taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4= =B1rl=C4=B1/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