From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andreas Rottmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add implementation of "transcoded ports" Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:08:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87oc9e8dtd.fsf@delenn.lan> References: <87d3pyz5yo.fsf@delenn.lan> <1290377874-13808-4-git-send-email-a.rottmann@gmx.at> <87pqtu5pa4.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290643745 10393 80.91.229.12 (25 Nov 2010 00:09:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:09:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 25 01:09:01 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLPOX-0006wv-Cy for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:09:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50464 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLPOW-0006F5-W9 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:09:01 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=42762 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLPOT-0006Eh-Tz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:08:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLPOR-0003Ln-DF for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:08:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]:54145 helo=mail.gmx.net) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLPOR-0003L4-1C for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:08:55 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2010 00:08:52 -0000 Original-Received: from 83-215-154-5.hage.dyn.salzburg-online.at (EHLO nathot.lan) [83.215.154.5] by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 25 Nov 2010 01:08:52 +0100 X-Authenticated: #3102804 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/70d5CA2P7Ie78A6YUMUqcDVrKeBPJUsheEzAkc0 0P/0CaTVwayhlG Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nathot.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06A83A695; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:08:51 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from nathot.lan ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nathot.lan [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Vfpdl4BvjHw; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:08:47 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from delenn.lan (delenn.lan [192.168.3.11]) by nathot.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990EE3A693; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:08:47 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by delenn.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0FD8E2C05D7; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:08:47 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87pqtu5pa4.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:29:23 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:11199 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Hello! > > I pushed your patches, thanks! > Cool! > Now, I=E2=80=99m slightly worried because now (rnrs io ports) /looks/ com= plete > but isn=E2=80=99t quite complete. :-) > Indeed. > For instance, > > - =E2=80=98binary-port?=E2=80=99 always returns #t. > AFAICT, there is currently no strictly correct way to tell binary ports and textual ports apart -- the closest thing I know about is having a port encoding of latin-1. Perhaps changing it to test for that would be at an improvement, although on the other hand, all ports in Guile are binary ports in the sense that you can do binary I/O operations, such as `put-bytevector' on them. So without extending the port infrastructure to support "disjoint" port types, the current implementation of `binary-port?' is probably the thing closest to the truth. > - Transcoder EOL styles are silently ignored. > > - Not all the transcoder error handling modes are supported. > > - Decoding errors are thrown as native Guile exceptions, instead of > R6RS conditions. > Thanks for coming up with this list; I'm sure there's more, but "we" have to start somewhere ;-). > So I think =E2=80=9Cwe=E2=80=9D (i.e., you ;-)) should either implement t= he missing > stuff, or raise an exception, or print a warning when the caller asks > for something that=E2=80=99s not implemented (e.g., EOL style !=3D native= ), or > document the current shortcomings. > > What do you think? > I'll try to do a mixture of all three approaches -- i.e. implement stuff as far as I have time and motivation, fall back on warnings, and document the remaining shortcomings where warnings are not feasible for some reason. How does that sound? Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann --