Michael Sperber scripsit:
> Does "line for flushing upon line endings or other
> implementation-defined separators and reading up to line endings or
> other implementation-defined separators" work?
I'd rather go for "line for flushing upon line endings and reading up
to line endings, or other implementation-dependent behavior. On some
ports there simply will be no concept of a line ending; in other cases
variable-sized buffering will be no more efficient than no buffering; in
still other cases it will be impractical to change hardwired underlying
assumptions like "line mode = LF only".
> > I think it would be within editorial discretion to extend the license
> > in 8.2.4 to provide implementation-dependent results on nonstandard
> > eol-symbols to buffer-mode-symbols as well.
>
> That I don't think I can do. I wish the possibility of other buffer
> modes had been suggested prior to the ratification candidate.
I suppose you are right. In which case buffer-mode? is indeed just
(lambda (s) (if (memq s '(none line block)) #t #f), which is rather
foolish.
Bah.
--
There is / One art John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
No more / No less http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
To do / All things
With art- / Lessness -- Piet Hein
Received on Tue Aug 28 2007 - 17:43:34 UTC