Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> On Wed 13 Mar 2013 14:09, "David A. Wheeler" <dwhee...@dwheeler.com> writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo:
>>
>>> So, we are repeating ourselves here :) I agree with you but I can't see
>>> a good way of implementing this.
>>
>> Would the per-port reader options be reasonable place to store the info
>> about EOF?
>
> For your own purposes that would be fine. But it cannot affect
> read-char / peek-char / etc for everyone, because it would have bad
> global effects on performance and correctness. That's why I'm pushing
> back on fixing this in Guile itself.
I don't know, it might not be that bad, now that we've agreed on a way
to extend the port structure in 2.0. Maybe we could just have a "last
peek-char returned EOF" flag that would be consulted by the other read
primitives.
I agree that we should not allow EOF to be unread.
What do you think?
Mark
