[r6rs-discuss] Issues with section 8.2. Port I/O, a.k.a. (rnrs io ports (6))

Michael Sperber sperber at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Tue Aug 28 04:02:41 EDT 2007


John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:

> William D Clinger scripsit:
>
>> > The three listed buffer modes are none, line, and block.
>> 
>> FYI, Larceny's preferred buffer mode for interactive output
>> ports is datum.  The buffer-mode syntax does not allow datum,
>> which is one of several reasons that syntax is deprecated
>> in Larceny.
>
> Formal comment #185, which was adopted by the editors, says that line
> buffering is explicitly implementation-dependent; the draft should be
> changed to make it so. 

Indeed: Thanks for pointing this out.

Does "line for flushing upon line endings or other
implementation-defined separators and reading up to line endings or
other implementation-defined separators" work?

> I think it would be within editorial discretion to extend the license
> in 8.2.4 to provide implementation-dependent results on nonstandard
> eol-symbols to buffer-mode-symbols as well.

That I don't think I can do.  I wish the possibility of other buffer
modes had been suggested prior to the ratification candidate.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla



More information about the r6rs-discuss mailing list