Chris Hanson wrote: > Except that the only strong argument for keeping the string interface is > historical compatibility.
I disagree. A strong argument for keeping the CHAR type is to have a model for encoding units. That's "encoding units" in a broad sense that goes beyond anything specified in Unicode. Encoding units in this broad sense are simply the atomic units of I/O -- members of abstract alphabets, considered separately from their bit-wise external representations (of which, each CHAR might have several). Then, a strong argument for keeping the STRING type is that a mutable, homogenous, disjoint, arbitrary-size sequence of CHAR is a vital abstraction for common I/O operations. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
