Thomas Lord scripsit: > Example: I've used the CHAR type in a traditional lisp way: to > represent typed characters with "bucky bits" like > META-ALT-SUPER-X. I understand others have as well > and do you agree permitting at least /that/ would be a reasonable > compromise? If that example should be permitted that gives us at least > a loosening of the range restrictions.
If you want those, then introduce the type BUCKY-CHAR, a supertype of CHAR. Why not? That way CHAR remains portable and you can work in BUCKY-CHARs and, if needed, BUCKY-STRINGS. > Example: Scheme has been used quite a few times, successfully, > in embedded systems (such as controlling small robots). Such > applications often need a small footprint and don't need, for > example, large Unicode property tables. If that's permitted, that > gives us a shrinking of the mandatory character set. Fortunately, the property tables are needed only if the program imports (r6rs unicode) -- the base library doesn't have any procedures depending on Unicode properties. -- "Well, I'm back." --Sam John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
