On 11/22/2012 06:22 PM, John Cowan wrote:> Per Bothner scripsit:
> How can infinite output be human-readable? Humans don't have infiniteA multi-GB output file isn't human-readable either, but that isn't the
> life spans.
point. The point is that programs may continue executing "for-ever"
(i.e. until the computer is rebooted), and some some such programs
generate unbounded output - perhaps to some logging device.
write-simple adds quotation marks and other escapes. write-string
> Infinite output can be truncated by another process, but
> in that case `write-simple` or `write-string` is probably the Right Thing.
might work in practice - mainly because display does emit delimiters
for strings and vectors, which you wouldn't want anyway if you want
unbounded output. I just feel checking for cycles is not the job
I still think it is more consistent, as well as simpler, to allow
On 11/22/2012 11:58 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Shiro Kawai scripsit:
>> The current wording can be read a bit wider than requiring labels on
>> circular objects; that is, it can be read as display must terminate on
>> any objects (even if the object is implementation's extension), which
>> concerns me. If I can read it that the behavior only describes on the
>> domain of r7rs, I'm ok with it.
> I've changed "However, `display` must always terminate" to "However,
> `display` must not loop forever on circular lists or self-referencing
cyclic structures to produce infinite unbounded output.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports