From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?UTF-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: bug#26058: utf16->string and utf32->string don't conform to R6RS Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:03:00 +0100 Message-ID: <87d1djzysb.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87o9x83t0f.fsf@gmail.com> <87shmhqqgd.fsf@pobox.com> <87h92xyrmr.fsf@gmail.com> <87bmt4rht1.fsf@pobox.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 1489503442 4213 195.159.176.226 (14 Mar 2017 14:57:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:57:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: 26058@debbugs.gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 14 15:57:16 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 1cnnsq-0008D9-8s for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:57:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59954 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnnsw-0000L8-Bn for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:57:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59857) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnnsq-0000Kk-7L for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:57:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnnsk-00087m-Dz for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:57:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57602) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cnnsk-00087U-Ad for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cnnsk-0002A5-3n for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:57:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?UTF-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer?=) Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guile@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:57:02 +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=B26058.14895033668220 (code B ref 26058); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:57:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 26058) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Mar 2017 14:56:06 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55801 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cnnrp-00028W-LP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:56:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:36046) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cnnrn-00027t-O0 for 26058@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:56:04 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wr0-f195.google.com with SMTP id l37so24187448wrc.3 for <26058@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+qISebW9uadEnddQoWiLjRBN5b1E2AxJUbEL3gOEPtw=; b=B7NuZW+CGf9pUkb8izu5DPvBuM4o0VQB0NcCg6I8OpcS6rKhBQazv8IjKT30QxQ4ZH dCH/uzuNoKMSi7sJXRxkuI1UPUjlRa8DQweqfH4c1lo1a31ODZ5mU/X10xEHHnaADvWo pDomx1fshp7xZYR/dEnItoG3DoyAnAw3cvlIAqXBUXj2ImEX6zlCjWV2n4jikQsgk6MC IBiRye/oLoSZQVOKBmqznZHBjFIeG8iS0yY4fNbbSWfHep7Dkrdbe+IosU5VGKG93zMl ex9JeEtg7oiTTi1rSsUR4GLM/GdDMs5g7Q+ZisB8rB+4gotxagoKdskPux8bMoTZgEkr Ndng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+qISebW9uadEnddQoWiLjRBN5b1E2AxJUbEL3gOEPtw=; b=OOYOl1z72zZGWgV3dLPaXIZPdhKqAqj/lEq0zbkBvkU77R/M+HXWZMDHGgJhp6o3Bq YEhhf0TKyd/xEfbv6JOESuOGfIZnM9LBl9FvZLx6UumvERllkfGUWlb35ygWricO6H1W 0NfOUIGR8cFLakUwd1R4XuM/tg5b7rWrj+tGmcHH5ZdgO3eMS7hF608epwiNNP8adqCB YXGADL7TZQ8EOa0y+PTrOdGAgqCDw2/Ujkd9xnVPGz50vOdxyjdBjwd6thk7Uyp/Fn9B duQo/g1L1yNWdforJwR6s1Wxda7WVOl+16CJjehq7GSJ70SbwomHK16V76lNh0YPlQqb n8yg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m6X5gsTQskJqlbihOO9kH/BW872Oer+/h5I8Dx6zxIMwbx47KxFuYl8g1G8+xGZg== X-Received: by 10.223.132.163 with SMTP id 32mr33789837wrg.147.1489503358000; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from T420 ([2a02:908:c30:3540:221:ccff:fe66:68f0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 11sm29454400wrb.10.2017.03.14.07.55.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:55:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87bmt4rht1.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:24:42 +0100") 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:8684 Archived-At: 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? Taylan