Re: Character and output-width proposals

[tmb@idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel)]

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
dependent features.

 > 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
same reasons.

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.

					Thomas.