[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] need make-custom-textual-input-port and make-custom-textual-output-port

[Per Bothner]

Michael Sperber wrote:
> Per Bothner <per at bothner.com> writes:
> 
>> I guess in theory one might be able to wrap a transcoder around a
>> custom binary port but that seems horribly wrong when there is no
>> underlying byte stream.
> 
> Why?

Most of believe that an API should avoid exposing the underlying
representation, for reasons we should all be familiar with.

Now you're proposing that we *pretend* there is an underlying
byte-sequence representation that doesn't exist, and then expose
this "virtual" underlying representation.

All I can say is "ick!".

If you think this is reasonable, at the very least you need to show us
(and the readers of R6RS) how : How would you implement 
open-string-input-port in terms of make-custom-binary-input-port?
This should be something that an "ordinary person skilled in the art"
of writing Scheme can do.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per at bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/