[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] extras.scm: make-output-port wise or not?
From: |
felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] extras.scm: make-output-port wise or not? |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:26:42 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529 |
Joerg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Hi all,
I came across the definition of make-output-port in extras.scm; there
I found:
(define make-output-port
[...]
(##sys#setslot
port 2
(lambda (op port args)
(case op
[(#:close-output-port) (close)]
[(#:flush-output) #f]
[(#:write-char) (write (string args))]
[(#:write-string) (write (string-copy args))]
Is this really wise to copy the string here? I understand that the
'write' operation could - in theory - modify it's argument. But I'd
argue that this should be forbidden by policy (i.e., documented as
beeing an error if it does; the result may be unspecified). Copying
the string seems a silly prise to pay here.
That's true. I'll fix this.
[(#:close-input-port #:char-ready? #:read-char #:peek-char)
(unsup op) ]
[(#:data) data]
BTW: what is this operation good for?
[else ##sys#snafu] ) ) )
port) ) ) )
That's a magic value returned to the caller of the handler
procedure (the procedure in slot #2 of a port record). It
tells the caller that this operation is not implemented, and
should be handled by the default handler.
cheers,
felix