On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Jean-Michel HUFFLEN <[email protected]>wrote:
> Let us go back to characters. You do not want to give any > priviledge to a particular encoding. OK. How can I write portable > code, running on several interpreters? Some characters may be not > included in the encoding used for writing characters. How can I make > sure that I will avoid errors? For me, if I had: > - a function returning the default encoding used, > - a function returning the available encodings, > I would be the happiest programmer. Encodings and error management > would be implementation-dependent, but we would have a way to get > information about what a particular implementation can provide. You > mentioned that Java and C# do not provide such functions. I would be > unhappy if I have to program my applications in Java or C#. > I like the idea, but that's exactly the kind of thing that should be in the larger Scheme specified by working group two, not in the smaller Scheme standard we're working on at the moment. Things like first-class representations for character encodings are like yarn -- if you keep pulling, eventually the whole sweater is undone.
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
