On 01/30/2015 09:52 AM, Michael Montague wrote:
> Lets say I have an existing routine 'write-stuff-and-close' which works
> just fine with file ports and seems like a reasonable thing to do. If
> get-output-string on a closed port is an error, then I can use a string
> output port with the routine, but I can't get at the output. This seems
> like an arbitrary restriction.
>

And what, exactly, does it mean to "close" a string port?
Is there any reason why you cannot or should not immediately
reopen the string port you just passed 'write-stuff-and-close'
when it returns if you want to read from it?  After all,
you'd have to do the same with any file port if you wanted
to read from  it after passing it to that routine.

				Bear

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