----- Original Message ---- > From: Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> > To: Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> > Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 11:25:26 AM > Subject: Re: Unicode ports patch > > Hi, > > On Tue 01 Sep 2009 10:19, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > > Mike Gran writes: > > > >> The latest commit 'Add full Unicode capability to ports and the default > >> reader' 889975e51accb80491af76fc5db980aeb3edd342 adds the majority of > >> the functionality for non-ASCII strings. > > > > This patch adds a few functions related to string ports: > > > > * libguile/strports.c: store string ports in locale encoding > > (scm_strport_to_locale_u8vector, scm_call_with_output_locale_u8vector) > > (scm_open_input_locale_u8vector, scm_get_output_locale_u8vector): > > new functions > > > > I think it would be nicer if these used bytevectors instead of u8vectors > > and were locale-independent (which would match the `string->utf8' & > > co. API). Also I would make `scm_strport_to_locale_u8vector ()' > > private. And finally, it'd be even better if it were documented in the > > manual. :-)
I don't understand. "it would be nicer if *these* ..." To what does *these* refer: string ports? It would be nicer if we replace string ports with bytevector ports? Or it would be nicer if scm_get_output_locale_u8vector was scm_get_output_bytevector? "it would be nicer if these used bytevectors ... and were *locale-independent*" It would be nicer if string ports were actually bytevector ports, and that they were locale-independent? Or that scm_get_output_bytevector returned a locale-independent (ergo 8-bit or 32-bit) vector? > > > > Actually I'm not convinced that `call-with-output-locale-*' and > > `open-input-locale-*' are useful, precisely because we can use a string > > port to get a string and then `string->utf8' to get at the string bits. "We can use a string port to get a string" If we write to a string port and pop a result string? "And then use string->utf8 to get at the string bits" And then convert the result string to a UTF-8 encoded bytevector? > > FWIW, I think I agree with all of Ludovic's comments; though if there is > a way that we can simply arrange to output bytes to an R6RS binary > output port, I think there are already efficient means to collect the > bytes from such a port in a bytevector. Thanks, Mike
