[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Sting abstraction 2
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Sting abstraction 2 |
Date: |
Thu, 21 May 2009 01:32:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux) |
Hey,
Mike Gran <address@hidden> writes:
> So, same patches, different order, better testing. Just try to git
> er done.
OK, thanks for the explanation.
> (Did I ever mention this backtrace tree
> pic? http://www.lonelycactus.com/uploaded_images/test[1]-765536.PNG
> It shows that for all the scripts the test suite, all of the calls to
> low-level read and write pass through those two functions.)
Nice. I suppose you had breakpoints in GDB, captured the output of
"bt", frobbed it and fed it to `dot'?
> I have changed my opinion on one issue. I don't believe that Guile
> ports should have a specific encoding: they should just use the
> locale. This is just pragmatism. Guile ports and the default reader
> are annoying things to hack. I am loathe to touch them more than is
> necessary.
>
> The R6RS ports have the nice transcoder idea. It might be more fun to
> push port-specific encodings to that library.
Are you saying that we'd have an implementation of the R6 port API that
DTRT, whereas Guile's current API would remain encoding-oblivious?
Thanks!
Ludo'.