From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Add implementation of "transcoded ports" Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:15:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87pqttxfzc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d3pyz5yo.fsf@delenn.lan> <1290377874-13808-4-git-send-email-a.rottmann@gmx.at> <87pqtu5pa4.fsf@gnu.org> <87oc9e8dtd.fsf@delenn.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290719759 9888 80.91.229.12 (25 Nov 2010 21:15:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 21:15:59 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 25 22:15:46 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 1PLjAJ-0005KV-NR for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:15:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54497 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLjAJ-0001eJ-0l for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:15:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56000 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PLjA5-0001df-0p for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:15:32 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLjA2-000720-Qr for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:15:24 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:41499) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PLjA2-00071m-G2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:15:22 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PLjA0-00058c-6C for guile-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:15:20 +0100 Original-Received: from yoda.fdn.fr ([80.67.169.18]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:15:20 +0100 Original-Received: from ludo by yoda.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:15:20 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 45 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: yoda.fdn.fr X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 5 Frimaire an 219 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:DrsoQWNC0xpb5NczN2uUNXqrKnY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:11200 Archived-At: Hi Andreas! Andreas Rottmann writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> - ‘binary-port?’ 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. True. We know that a transcoded port with one of the textual codecs is textual, but we can never know if it’s “binary-only”. I’m not sure how much of a problem it is for R6RS programs. Actually I cannot imagine how a program would make use of it, other than for type-checking purposes. Thoughts? [...] >> So I think “we” (i.e., you ;-)) should either implement the missing >> stuff, or raise an exception, or print a warning when the caller asks >> for something that’s not implemented (e.g., EOL style != 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? Good! :-) Thanks, Ludo’.