One should remember that the purpose of such an FAQ, from such a source, is not to survey and report upon anything fundamental in computer programming but, rather, to guide the rapid commercial adoption of a standard under highly contingent circumstances.
You know, Steele worked on Java. We're working on Scheme. This is not to say that Davis' comment isn't a good rule of thumb or "design pattern". Just that it shouldn't be taken as the last word on anything. -t Jason Orendorff wrote:
Michael linked to a Unicode FAQ earlier; I want to highlight this: "Q: How about using UTF-32 interfaces in my APIs? "A: Except in some environments that store text as UTF-32 in memory, most Unicode APIs are using UTF-16. With UTF-16 APIs the low level indexing is at the storage or code unit level, with higher-level mechanisms for graphemes or words specifying their boundaries in terms of the code units. This provides efficiency at the low levels, and the required functionality at the high levels." The author is Mark Davis, President of the Unicode Consortium. http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#11 -j _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
