32 lines
1.2 KiB
Scheme
32 lines
1.2 KiB
Scheme
#lang scheme
|
|
(require scheme/serialize)
|
|
|
|
(provide/contract
|
|
[read/bytes (bytes? . -> . serializable?)]
|
|
[write/bytes (serializable? . -> . bytes?)]
|
|
[bytes-ci=? (bytes? bytes? . -> . boolean?)])
|
|
|
|
(define (bytes-ci=? b0 b1)
|
|
(string-ci=? (bytes->string/utf-8 b0)
|
|
(bytes->string/utf-8 b1)))
|
|
;; Eli: If this ever gets in, it should say that the memory requirements
|
|
;; are 4 times the input size, especially since bytes are often used to save
|
|
;; space. Also, fails on (bytes-ci=? #"\277" #"\277"), and a trivial fix
|
|
;; would still fail on (bytes-ci=? #"\276\277" #"\277\276")
|
|
|
|
(define (read/bytes bs)
|
|
(read (open-input-bytes bs)))
|
|
;; Eli: This is a really bad name for something that is often called
|
|
;; `read-from-string', or `read-from-bytes' in this case. I first read it as
|
|
;; "read with bytes". Regardless, I see little point in composing two
|
|
;; functions where the two names are clear enough -- you might consider
|
|
;; looking at the version in CL.
|
|
|
|
(define (write/bytes v)
|
|
(define by (open-output-bytes))
|
|
(write v by)
|
|
(get-output-bytes by))
|
|
;; Eli: Same bad name as above. Also, is there any point in this given
|
|
;; (format "~s" v), and the fact that using the resulting string for printout
|
|
;; will get the same result.
|