Scheme language standardization process
On Thu, 19 May 2011 18:59:32 -0400, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote: > Andy Wingo scripsit: > >> Why not specify `close-port' instead of `close-input-port' and >> `close-output-port' ? Is there any benefit that having two procedures >> when one would do, except compatibility? (Because if it's simply for >> compatibility, one can provide shims.) > > Scheme isn't big on generic procedures, which is why we have length and > vector-length and string-length and blob-length. Genericity is a Good > Thing, but just a little bit of it doesn't buy you much. We did add > `port?`, but that's because it was mentioned in section 2.3 but not in > section 6, leading to substantial uncertainty and differences between > implementations. I do not believe that we have input/output ports. If we did have comined input/output ports, it would make sense to have a close-port procedure. As it is, I don't think we lose much in having both, since you should always know which one your are dealing with. On the other hand, I do think it is convenient to have close-port, and I imagine that most Schemes have this procedure anyways. Aaron W. Hsu -- Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports