Subject: Re: bug#26058: utf16->string and utf32->string don't conform to R6RS

From: [email-masked] (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:03:00 +0100

Andy Wingo <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Mon 13 Mar 2017 19:10, [email-masked] (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>
>> If I do binary I/O, the following situations are possible:
>>
>> 1. I'm guaranteed to get any possible bytes that happen to form a valid
>>    BOM at the start of the stream as-is in the returned bytevector; the
>>    binary I/O interface doesn't see such bytes as anything special, as
>>    it could simply be coincidence that the stream starts with such
>>    bytes.
>
> (1).  But I thought this bug was about using a bytevector as a source
> and then doing textual I/O on it, no?

I have a feeling we're somehow talking past each other. :-) As far as
I'm concerned, the bug is just that the procedures don't conform to the
specification.

It would of course be good if the behavior of these procedures was
somehow in harmony with the behavior of I/O operations, but I don't see
any issues arising from adopting the R6RS behavior of the procedures
utf16->string and utf32->string.  Do you?

Taylan