On Mar 25, 2007, at 10:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'll tell you what. Find a document, written by someone with
substantial Unicode experience, that recommends UTF-32 as the best
overall
in-memory encoding.
For some "all-Scheme" systems, even UTF-32 may be suboptimal since
string-ref
would incur two additional instructions (shift and tag) while string-
set!
would take one instruction hit (untag) while ordinarily each could be
done
with a single machine instruction. A representation of strings as an
array
of tagged characters may be a win for all Scheme operations and would
only
lose for cross-language communication (which may lose anyways
depending on
the encoding of the interfaced-to environment, or the number of types of
foreign libraries or operating systems).
I would not expect a Unicode expert to know about implementation
details of
optimizing Scheme implementations, which are far different from the
details
and constraints of a C library, a browser, or a stand-alone XSLT
processor).
I would take their advice as a rule-of-thumb (as in follow it when
you don't
know any better). I trust that the editors know better.
Aziz,,,
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
