Michael Sperber wrote:
> Per Bothner <per_at_bothner.com> writes:
>
>> I guess in theory one might be able to wrap a transcoder around a
>> custom binary port but that seems horribly wrong when there is no
>> underlying byte stream.
>
> Why?
Most of believe that an API should avoid exposing the underlying
representation, for reasons we should all be familiar with.
Now you're proposing that we *pretend* there is an underlying
byte-sequence representation that doesn't exist, and then expose
this "virtual" underlying representation.
All I can say is "ick!".
If you think this is reasonable, at the very least you need to show us
(and the readers of R6RS) how : How would you implement
open-string-input-port in terms of make-custom-binary-input-port?
This should be something that an "ordinary person skilled in the art"
of writing Scheme can do.
--
--Per Bothner
per_at_bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 15:48:22 UTC