Thomas Lord wrote: > 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.
Agreed. I'm not suggesting changing the character type. > 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. I don't see how "mutable" is vital here, unless you are referring to implementation of I/O buffers. I don't see that buffering need be done using the text abstraction; vectors of characters will work fine. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
