John Cowan <[email protected]> writes: > R7RS-small requires the characters from #\x0 to #\x7F, the ASCII > repertoire, to exist. It also requires that characters in the range > #\x0 to #\x10FFFF, if they exist, correspond to Unicode characters.
> 5) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to provide the > characters from #\x80 to #\xFF? (All Schemes in my test suite do so.) > > 6) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to provide the > characters from #\x100 to #\xFFFF, excluding the surrogate code points > from #\xD800 to \#xD8FF, which do not correspond to Unicode scalar > values? (JVM and CLR implementations other than Kawa do this.) > Voting yes on this question implies a yes vote on #5. > > 7) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to provide the > characters from #\x10000 to #\x10FFFF? (R6RS implementations and many > R5RS and R7RS implementations do this. See > <http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/UnicodeSupport> for details on > particular implementations.) Voting yes on this question implies a > yes vote on #5 and #6. Yes. > 8) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to allow #\x0 in > strings? (There have been implementations in the past which did not, > for the sake of simpler interchange with C, but none of the test-suite > implementations have this restriction.) Yes. > 9) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to allow the > characters from #\x80 to #\xFF in strings? (All implementations in > the test suite do so.) > > 10) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to allow the > characters from #\x100 to #\xFFFF in strings? (MIT and RScheme do > not, even though they support them as character objects.) Voting yes > on this question implies a yes vote on #9. > > 11) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to allow the > characters from #\x10000 to #\x10FFFF in strings? (Again, MIT does > not, even though it supports them as character objects.) Voting yes > on this question implies a yes vote on #10. Yes. > 12) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to support > identifiers with non-ASCII characters as specified in Section 7.1.1 of > R7RS-large? (Most implementations do, either deliberately or because > they support almost everything as an identifier.) This permits the > use of most languages as a source of Scheme identifiers. Yes. > 13) Should R7RS-large implementations be required to provide the > (scheme char) library, which is optional in R7RS-small? It contains > the procedures which require O(n)-sized tables, where n is the number > of supported characters in the implementation, namely: > char-alphabetic?, char-lower-case?, char-upper-case?, > char-whitespace?, char-numeric?; char- and string-upcase, -downcase, > and -foldcase; and the char-ci and string-ci procedures. (Essentially > all implementations do so, as all of these are required in R6RS and > all but the foldcase procedure are required in R5RS. The library was > made optional in R7RS-small in order to support embedded > implementations that wanted to provide the full range of characters > but could not afford the space for tables.) Yes. Taylan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
