> From:Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> > To:[email protected] > Cc: > Sent:Monday, January 24, 2011 2:26 PM > Subject:The “binary-friendly” Latin-1 > > Hello! > > Do we really want to keep: > > 1. The notion of a “binary-friendly” ISO-8859-1 encoding? It’s > actually mostly gone with the iconv change, since every textual > access goes through iconv. For binary accesses, the right API is > (rnrs io ports) or similar.
An equivalent question is if you care about backward compatibility of legacy ports. Legacy ports returned strings and were once the only option. I think it is a bad idea if you are replacing one non-RNRS port system with another non-RNRS port system. It is a less bad if you are replacing non-RNRS ports with RNRS ports, assuming, of course that R7RS doesn't just invent yet another port system. > > 2. The #f <=> "ISO-8859-1" equivalence for ‘port-encoding’ and > ‘set-port-encoding!’. Likewise, commit > d9544bf012b6e343c80b76bd5761b1583cc106a3 makes ‘port-encoding’ > always return a string and pt->encoding always be non-NULL. Is the cost of doing the various string comparisons of port-encoding strings negligible? It was put in as a (premature) optimization. > > Sorry for questioning this now, but these are important questions, I > think. Indeed. > > Thanks, > Ludo’. Thanks, Mike
