John Cowan wrote:
> Thomas Lord scripsit:
>
>
>> So, the answer is "no," thus CL did not "regress" in the way that you
>> claim. Since you recognize that that *would* have been a regression
>> then, to be consistent, you should either agree that the restrictions in
>> the R6 core are a regression or else convincingly distinguish the two cases.
>>
>
> I deny that there are any such restrictions in the R6 core.
I know deny that but I can't imagine why since your denial is
so obviously incorrect.
Section 11.11 contains the sentence:
These procedures impose a total ordering on the
set of characters according to their Unicode scalar values.
referring to char<=? and friends.
Per R6, the Scheme character type is a set of exactly 1,112,064 distinct
values, no more, no less.
You have previously handwaved by pointing out that anyone is free
to implement a new CHARACTER? type or similar and do whatever
they like. It is generally true that, given only a pure R6 implementation,
one could write sufficient libraries that, at least semantically (forget
performance) one never needs to use *any* of the core types or
procedures of R6 directly. One might wonder why we should then have
the core types at all....
-t
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
