Re: [Chicken-hackers] Suggestion for the ports unit: port-pipe

[Felix]

From: Moritz Heidkamp <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Suggestion for the ports unit: port-pipe
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:52:34 +0200

> Felix <address@hidden> writes:
>> I'd call it `port-copy'.
> 
> I thought of that, too, but it sounds like it would copy the port
> objects rather than stream their contents. Maybe `port-stream'? I'm not
> sure :-) What do you think about its usefulness? I might as well just
> make an egg for it if you think it's too specific to be included in the
> core distribution.

I think it's certainly useful. Unfortunately what is considered useful
and what not depends on the user. Ideally, everything that's not required
for the core system should be kept in extensions (provided I understand
what Kon wrote about the subject, I agree with him on this part).

I'd like to throw out a lot of stuff, but that would break backwards-
compatibility. But I think this procedure is small and useful enough
to be added, anyway.


cheers,
felix