Re: [Scheme-reports] close-port

[John Cowan <cowan@x>]

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 marvel at the creature: so secret and         John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool   cowan@x
before our very window.  Does he think that     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Men sleep without watch all night?

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports