l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hello! > > Commit b22e94db7c91d7661204e33f3bc2bfead002c9b7 adds > ‘%default-port-conversion-strategy’, a natural friend of > ‘%default-port-encoding’. > > First, I’m wondering whether ‘port’ should be part of the name, given > that it’s also referred to by ‘scm_stringn’ & co. It’s good to have it > in the name, for the symmetry with ‘%default-port-encoding’, but it’s > not accurate. > > Second, in commit 9f6e3f5a997f484548bd03e7e7573c38a95c8d09, I changed > string ports to honor it, like other port types, instead of forcing > 'error. This seems like the right thing to me, for the sake of > consistency (in fact, I’d consider the previous behavior as a bug), but > it’s an observable change. > > WDYT?
Shouldn't strings be in "internal encoding" anyway? The whole point of a string is to be an array of characters. Not an array of arbitrarily encoded bytes. -- David Kastrup
