Per Bothner wrote:
Keyboard events may have bucky bits. However, keyboard events
are not characters, and bucky bits are not useful in the context
on standardizing characters and strings, unless you also want to
standardize input events.
I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction you are making
between characters and keyboard events. Both are captured
by my Shannon-referring definition of characters. Neither
keyboard events or 5.92's definition of CHAR captures any
linguistically robust definition of textual characters. So, what are
these characters of which you speak?
Given something over 30 years worth of bucky-bit characters
in lisp systems, why do think this is a non-real-world, puzzle-only,
artificial use-case?
I was talking about reversing a string, not bucky bits per se.
But I explained above why I don't think bucky bits are relevant.
Characters do not have bucky bits. The "30 years of bucky-bit
characters" is due to incorrectly conflating characters and
input events, which does not make sense in today's multi-lingual
world.
What's incorrect about it? Also: The world has long been multi-lingual
but, more to the point, what has that to do with 5.92's CHAR?
It would be equally multi-lingual to lock down CHAR as UTF-8
code units, UTF-16 code units, scalar values, grapheme clusters.
It would be equally multi-lingual to permit but not require any of
those interpretations and to permit but not require extensions. It
would be better multi-lingual to permit extensions in areas that Unicode
has specifically declined to pursue. What's you're point?
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
