On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 12:17 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 08:56 -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> > This is why I believe that the best semantics for string-length,
> > indexes in strings, etc, is that they should count characters
> > rather than codepoints. And this is one of the things that I
> > believed then and still believe now that R6RS got wrong.
>
> That's a reasonable view when a string is being regarded
> primarily as human text to be manipulated in linguistically
> significant ways. Strings as a data structure are more
> general than that, though.
Isn't it true that the "more general" uses of strings would
all be equally or better served by binary buffers (bytevectors,
uniform numeric vectors, whatever)?
I don't know about you but I *do* regard strings primarily as
text intended for human readability and to be manipulated in
linguistically (or at least character-oriented) significant
ways. Whenever I find myself doing something else with one,
I realize that I am no longer using it as a string.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
