[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Character and output-width proposals
On Thu, 4 Jun 92 11:24:40 -0400, "Aubrey Jaffer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> From: email@example.com (Thomas M. Breuel)
> 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.
> Yes. And this is also tied in with CHAR-CODE-LIMIT.
Why should binary I/O have anything inherent to do with characters?
It would seem to me that, to do this right, you'd want to have some
sort of machine-word object, or something like Ken Dickey's abstract
stores (proposed for this purpose), or maybe bitvectors.
> I have written routines which convert integers to 4 byte strings.
> It is not portable because it depends on 8 bit characters. But if
> CHAR-CODE-LIMIT were defined, it could be portable.
What would the portable version do? It can't convert integers to 4
byte strings of characters if 2^32 isn't a power of the number of
characters. I suppose it could convert them to strings of 4
characters, but I'm not sure why I would want to do that.
My polyvinyl cowboy wallet was made in Hong Kong by Montgomery