Grant, On 19-Feb-2009 Grant Rettke wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:48 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote: >> As the R6RS process's chief Unicode hound, I'd like to say a word or >> two about why I think Unicode matters. There are at least three kinds >> of reasons. > > All good points. > > How much of a cultural shift is this for Scheme?
I for one think that while Unicode is a plenty good thing to have (I didn't think this a while ago) we also need to make it possible to support NON unicode systems. That is, if we have systems that really need certain properties, we should allow them some way of getting the basic ASCII string type stuff, or at least 1 byte characters with O(1) access time and so forth. I am fine with Unicode being the default (though apparently some people take issue with the way Unicode was used in R6RS), but we should also make it possible to specify that we don't want Unicode, and get benefits commensurate with this. Maybe something like #!ascii? I hate code littered with these things, but I don't know if anyone would like me if I suggested that they should be specifiable at the library level. -- Aaron W. Hsu <[email protected]> | <http://www.sacrideo.us> "Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat +++++++++++++++ ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) ++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
