On 23 Sep 2009, at 7:07 am, Thomas Lord wrote: > It's not completely absurd to imagine defining strings and > string lengths inductively (take length 0 and length 1 strings > as axiomatic and define appending) but it is a bit > like walking the long way around the block instead of going > two doors down. If strings look and quack like finite > sequences of something, it's nice to be able to reflect on that > domain of "something". A first-class character type is a > natural move.
Thing is, the term "character" gives people certain expectations, that generally fail to take into account diacritics and all that. Making them available but calling the codepoints might be a good idea, however... ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym Work: http://www.snell-systems.co.uk/ Play: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ Blog: http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/author/alaric/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
