Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Move port procedures out of toplevel and drop most "chicken" imports

[Peter Bex]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 09:47:03PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> > I wasn't totally sold on port?, actually, so I put it in chicken.base
> > since that's what the R7RS does, and that's also where many of the other
> > type predicates for built-ins have gone, e.g. fixnum? and promise?. This
> > is a toss-up for me, though, since there is also blob? in chicken.blob,
> > locative? in chicken.locative, and so on. Thoughts?
> 
> Ports are necessarily basic enough to warrant putting them into chicken.base,
> I think. Look's good to me.

Yeah, let's do this.  I've been struggling for too long with what to do
with these ports procedures, and still haven't been able to come up with
a good solution.

One suggestion: Given that input-port-open? and output-port-open? are
in chicken.base, I would find it more intuitive to have port-closed? in
chicken.base as well.  What do you think?

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature