I started writing a silly jokey response to BH and realized that, for reasons unclear, Alaric's original message is one I either didn't get or that got mysteriously (and wrongly) reclassified as junk mail.
So, to Alaric, first: > Shoving these modifers into high bits in characters that are > represented as some fixed-width cell size is a hack Yes. Yes, it is. Thanks for noticing. The chickens will come home to roost on that hack right around the time that the Unicode Consortium runs out of code points to assign. On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 21:34 -0700, Brian Harvey wrote: > > '(escape (meta alt ctrl shift #\cokebottle)) ;-) > > IIRC alt, like shift, actually created different glyphs; they weren't bucky > bits. So no user code would ever see anything like this; it'd be > (meta ctrl #\someothercharacer) > > Maybe you meant to say > (hyper super meta ctrl #\cokebottle) ? Everything goes better with a .... level of indirection. So the Butler says. And it's often the Butler what done it. Keyboards give you whatever they give you and you can normalize it to whatever you like. Back to Alaric: > Storing function keys as symbols means you can easily deal > with good old Sun keyboards [etc.] Oh, good. Because, you know, it's not like we haven't easily dealt with old Sun keyboards (etc.) for about as long as they've been around. Er, oops.... actually we have. Along the lines I described. Lists or vectors (arrays in Emacs lisp) of symbols and chars are *also* a perfectly fine representation for event sequences. It's quite nice to have both, actually. -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
