Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > On Mon 13 Mar 2017 19:10, taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich > "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes: > >> If I do binary I/O, the following situations are possible: >> >> 1. I'm guaranteed to get any possible bytes that happen to form a valid >> BOM at the start of the stream as-is in the returned bytevector; the >> binary I/O interface doesn't see such bytes as anything special, as >> it could simply be coincidence that the stream starts with such >> bytes. > > (1). But I thought this bug was about using a bytevector as a source > and then doing textual I/O on it, no?
I have a feeling we're somehow talking past each other. :-) As far as I'm concerned, the bug is just that the procedures don't conform to the specification. It would of course be good if the behavior of these procedures was somehow in harmony with the behavior of I/O operations, but I don't see any issues arising from adopting the R6RS behavior of the procedures utf16->string and utf32->string. Do you? Taylan
