On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Takashi Kato <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 11:06, Alex Shinn wrote: > >> The set of characters supported and the set of characters >> supported within strings are not necessarily the same. >> Implementations may not support #\null within strings, but >> they must support the character. >> > It just doesn't make any sense to me that string can't handle #\null but > character can since string is a sequence of characters and it just seems an > ugly inconsistency. > > If implementations must support the same range both string and character, > it seems much simpler and have more consistency, IMHO. (of course it > doesn't matter which range it follows.) The inconsistency already existed separately from #\null. It existed historically from characters with buckey-bits (i.e. keystrokes represented as characters). It exists now in several implementations which support Unicode characters but not Unicode strings. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
