Yes, absolutely, but why should we distinguish on the bases of 'case'
and not 'font'?  They are different glyphs after all.

I doubt seriously that anyone would argue that a 'Times Roman' lower- 
case
'a' would be different from a 'Helvetica' lower-case 'a'.

It _is_ an arbitrary choice, and Scheme, like many Lisp dialects,
had traditionally been case insensitive. R6RS decided to be  
gratuitously incompatible.

And #!case-fold and #!no-case-fold is just punting the issue.
Now, I have to search for those if I want to read a piece of code and  
not be
confused.


On Feb 21, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Shiro Kawai wrote:

> From: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [r6rs-discuss] Case sensitivity
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:35:05 -0800
>
>> But the real reason is that some people have C/Java 'envy' and have
>> always had case sensitive
>> implementations, and have been trying to foist this on the rest for
>> ages (ever since R2RS).
>
> I'm not sure it is 'envy', but I started programming in C before
> coming to Lisp/Scheme, and case-insensitivity did struck me weird.
> But what's more perplexing is the debate about it.  My native
> language doesn't have a concept of "case" at all.   Thus, to me,
> 'A' and 'a' are different characters, that happened to be
> exchangeable in certain occasions.  Like 'あ' (U+3042) and
> 'ア' (U+30a2)---no Japanese would argue to fold these two.
> I suspect cultural issue in background is not negligible.
>
> Anyways, I frequently implement DSLs on top of Scheme, and some
> of such DSLs 'compiles' into case-sensitive languages.  Writing
> case-sensitive symbols with escaped notation clutters the code
> horribly and decreases the value of DSLs significantly.   Thus
> I welcomed R6RS's choice of case sensitivity.
>
> (BTW, now we can switch them by #!case-fold and #!no-case-fold,
> why are we discussing about this?)
>
> --shiro
>
>


_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss

Reply via email to