Hi Marco, Marco Maggi <marco.maggi-i...@poste.it> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >>>> However, I’m wondering whether we should not just >>>> squarely do away with the binary/textual distinction > > How would you handle port position? Currently port position is in bytes for all kinds of ports (info "(guile) Random Access"). It seems to be a valid implementation of R6 port positions, no? [...] > IMHO this R6 statement: > > (textual-port? port) procedure > (binary-port? port) procedure > > The textual-port? procedure returns #t if port is > textual, and returns #f otherwise. The binary-port? > procedure returns #t if port is binary, and returns #f > otherwise. > > should be enough to derive that: > > (cond ((binary-port? p) > ---) > ((textual-port? p) > ---)) > > and: > > (cond ((textual-port? p) > ---) > ((binary-port? p) > ---)) > > must be equivalent; if they are not, confusion arises > because of violation of the rule of least surprise. Yes, and that’s a problem. OTOH, what I wonder is when in practice would you need to use such an idiom, or to use these predicates at all? Thanks, Ludo’.
