John Cowan wrote:
Thomas Lord scripsit:
And, in general, one thing that might be more widely
agreed upon than either my formal comment or srfi-52
is that there is no non-controversial way to directly
extend CHAR/STRING from R5 into a full-blown
basis for Unicode programming.
Anything can be made controversial if someone chooses to
controvert it.
Are you trying to imply that I and everyone else who has criticized
the draft on these points is trying to make controversy for
controversy's sake?
To be clear, I'd like the Report series to remain the definition
of a language I want to support. There are many reasons, it
seems, why 5.92 won't pass that test but I happened to focus on
an area that is pretty isolated and about which I know a thing or
two.
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
