[R6RS] `open-string-output-port' is the same as `open-bytes-output-port'

[Michael Sperber]

dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:

>> Just a note to make sure everybody's aware of that.
>
> This probably makes perfect sense, but can you please explain briefly why
> this is (and should be) so?  Also, why does it take a transcoder argument? 
> For that matter, why do the open-file-input-port and open-file-output-port
> procedures take a transcoder argument?  I thought we'd decided to
> eliminate it.

We decided that every port may have an associated transcoder.  (Even
though the actual I/O operations don't use it by default.)  To me,
that seemed to imply that, upon creating a port, this transcoder may
be specified, as there's no other means to do that.  So, in the
current draft, *all* port-creation procedures accept a transcoder.
(It looks like the same transcoder as before, but in fact, it got
deleted and then added again in a new role.)  This also causes the
wrinkle and `open-string-...-port' I mentioned.

As we did not decide explicitly, I sent the note.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla