Shiro Kawai scripsit: > From: Brian Harvey <[email protected]> > > > Unicode is /so/ hairy that, were there no political considerations, > > it would be high on my list of WG2-only features.
Only if you grant that ASCII-only is an equally political choice: it gives a massive advantage to anglophones and nobody else. > Don't forget there are worlds besides ASCII and Unicode. We Japanese > have been using mutibyte code over 30 years. Indeed. You know that ISO 2022 I've been raving about? A subset of it is routinely used in Japan for email. > WG1 doesn't need to *mandate* unicode. But the slight consideration > to the possible encodings beyond ASCII, which means just not mixiing > bytes and characters, allows the code to be much more portable. > I don't think that's too much to ask. I agree. I wonder whether you think that bytevectors/blobs should be in the core, even though they can be (inefficiently) represented as general vectors, simply to prevent confusion between them and strings. (Of course, implementations would in either case be free to provide efficiently packed blobs.) -- But that, he realized, was a foolish John Cowan thought; as no one knew better than he [email protected] that the Wall had no other side. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Wall of Darkness" _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
