On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 18:48 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> You may not like the specification, but it requires the value #f > in this case, at least if the procedure call completes without an error. > > Same story: #f is required. > Well, with all due respect, that's breakage. That is, IMO, a misconception about what strings are and an elevation of representation details over semantics. That will have programs making distinctions among canonically identical strings, with the result that there'll be constant bugs when searching and pattern matching return false negative results. And this is *REQUIRED* behavior, not just permitted, so this is a bug that language implementers aren't even allowed to fix?! This goes well beyond "not like the specification" - this is into the realm of "apparently do not comprehend the basic values informing the specification." I think that forbidding the bug fix is incomprehensible, and must reveal some agenda or value completely alien to my whole way of thinking. Therefore I don't believe that I am capable of meaningfully contributing to a discussion of these strings. Apparently there is no common ground in values to work with. With this requirement, it becomes clear that I fundamentally don't understand what the committee would like these strings to be or do, so no contribution I can make would be directed toward helping to achieve whatever that goal might be. Bear _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
