Hi,
Daniel Krueger <
keenbug@...> skribis:
> If you have it mixed you can do some, say hacking, where you see it
> works but you can't see anywhere what you're exactly doing, most of it
> is hidden in the guile implementation, which interprets
> %default-port-conversion-strategy and gives you the coding. In one
> case you maybe rely on %default-port-conversion-strategy normally
> being UTF-8 and then someone sets it to something else, which could
> give some hard to track errors.
(You mean %default-port-encoding, right?)
I think this is an argument against %default-port-encoding, because the
“clarity” problem described here applies just the same for purely
textual ports.
> I think explicity just makes code much clearer and I think seperating
> textual and binary ports leads to more explicity, that's my point of
> view..
Yeah, I understand the idea, but I’m not sure how it translates to
concrete use cases. ;-)
Thanks for your feedback!
Ludo’.
