I am posting this as an individual member of the Scheme community. I am not speaking for the R6RS editors.
MichaelL wrote: > In fact, my position > would be even more extreme: I lament the loss of single/multi byte strings > in general (which would include UTF-8). They're still useful for low-level > work. In fact, they'll still be needed--think of the various Scheme to C > compilers, for example, that will need a char equivalent--they just won't > be standardized anymore. I don't know exactly what you mean by single/multi byte strings, but you indicated that they include UTF-8. I am not aware of anything in R5RS that would correspond to any definition of single/multi byte strings that would include UTF-8. So what do you mean by saying they "won't be standardized anymore"? > Bytevectors are definitely a very useful low-level addition to Scheme. But > single/multi-byte strings were, I think, an unnecessary loss, especially > for those who do lots of operating sytem- and library-level work. You seem to be lamenting the loss of something that never was. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
