John Cowan wrote: > Thomas Lord scripsit: > > >> If you want to find a "design motif" that explains R6's char >> and string types, I think you need look no further than to see >> that they are more or less a direct transliteration of the way >> scalar values and locale-independent string processing are defined >> in the Unicode standard. >> > > Quite so, and IMHO a Good Thing Too. >
That does seem to be the main rationale. >> (This is, of course, a regression from lisp tradition and Scheme >> tradition in which the character type was extensible and far more >> abstract.) >> > > I note that CL made a similar regression when it eliminated the > bits and font attributes. > > Does the CL spec *forbid* adding those features? -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
