Re: %default-port-conversion-strategy and string ports

[David Kastrup]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Hello!
>
> Commit b22e94db7c91d7661204e33f3bc2bfead002c9b7 adds
> ‘%default-port-conversion-strategy’, a natural friend of
> ‘%default-port-encoding’.
>
> First, I’m wondering whether ‘port’ should be part of the name, given
> that it’s also referred to by ‘scm_stringn’ & co.  It’s good to have it
> in the name, for the symmetry with ‘%default-port-encoding’, but it’s
> not accurate.
>
> Second, in commit 9f6e3f5a997f484548bd03e7e7573c38a95c8d09, I changed
> string ports to honor it, like other port types, instead of forcing
> 'error.  This seems like the right thing to me, for the sake of
> consistency (in fact, I’d consider the previous behavior as a bug), but
> it’s an observable change.
>
> WDYT?

Shouldn't strings be in "internal encoding" anyway?  The whole point of
a string is to be an array of characters.  Not an array of arbitrarily
encoded bytes.

-- 
David Kastrup