[r6rs-discuss] Stateful codecs and inefficient transcoding

[Andrew Pochinsky]

Shouldn't it be a bit different:
for a composition of t1 and t2 the input transcoder is t1input  
followed by t1output followed by t2input, and the output transcoder  
is t2output followed by t1input followed by t1output ?
If defined this way then for the case then t1 and t2 are invertable  
(input followed by output is an identity and vice a versa), so is  
their composition.
--andrew

On Nov 4, 2006, at 1:24 PM, William D Clinger wrote:

> Sheesh.  Let me try that a third time:
>
>  *  If t1 and t2 are transcoders, then their composition
>     is defined by describing their composition in both
>     the input and output directions.  In the input
>     direction, their composition is t1input followed by
>     t1output followed by t2input.  For output, their
>     composition is t2output followed by t2input followed
>     by t1output.
>
> So on input, you read with the old transcoder, undo the
> read with the old transcoder, and then read with the new.
>
> On output, you write with the new, undo the write with
> the new, and write with the old.  That will usually be the
> same as writing with the old, while limiting the character
> set to the new.  (I'm not sure that's the Right Thing, but
> switching transcoders on output doesn't seem to be a real
> requirement anyway.)
>
> I apologize for the mess, by which I mean more than just
> these three messages.
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss