[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Character and output-width proposals
Richard Mlynarik writes:
> I see no reason why CHAR->INTEGER and INTEGER->CHAR should exist at
> all. They are and can be of no portable use.
That's not entirely true: such conversions can be useful for writing
I/O functions. They can also be useful for writing implementation
dependent code (which some people need to do on occasion), and there
is nothing wrong with standardizing the names of implementation
> They make about as much sense as having a standard INEXACT->INTEGER
> procedure which returns an integer with the same bit-pattern as that
> of the inexact number's internal representation.
They do make about as much sense: such functions can be useful for the
In general, however, I'd prefer if Scheme supported efficient binary
I/O via some essential procedures. The current set of standard I/O
procedures, both text based and for data structures, is at best
adequate for writing toy programs.