Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
> But you would want the usual string operations to work with either
> kind of string, right?
Indeed.
> It could follow from the general principle of separating metadata from
> data: Put the encoding in the extended attributes of the file, or
> resource fork if you've
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:50 PM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that there should be two
> different kinds of strings, one of which is UTF-8 and one of which
> contains single-byte characters in an unspecified ASCII-compatible
> encoding, *and t
Hello,
We were trying to make sure that chicken-setup works in MinGW before
making the next release. Today and tomorrow I will be running
salmonella with the latest modifications to chicken-setup, and if that
works, I will make a new stable release.
-Ivan
Robin Lee Powell <[EMAIL PROTEC
Howdy
I took a shot at the shootout (ha!) starting with an easy one,
Mandelbrot. It's basically pure loops of flonum operations. By using
the unsafe number operations and by experimenting with a few loop
layouts, I managed to reduce the Chicken score from 35 times gcc
(previous submissi
Shawn Rutledge scripsit:
> That is a huge advantage. I think unless there are some
> insurmountable gotcha's, or it causes major efficiency problems, there
> are some good arguments for using UTF-8 for strings in Chicken.
I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that there should be two
differen
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 1:53 PM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's see... ASCII is valid UTF-8, so all ASCII external
> > representations wouldn't need any encoding or decoding work.
That is a huge advantage. I think unless there are some
insurmountable gotcha's, or it causes majo
On 18/03/2008, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The code does not contain any license at all, and the manual only says that
> the author hopes it will be helpful for many Scheme programmers. So this
> egg is "use at your own risk".
>
> Someone should contact the author.
I'll do that now
Tobia Conforto scripsit:
> Let's see... ASCII is valid UTF-8, so all ASCII external
> representations wouldn't need any encoding or decoding work.
True. However, pure ASCII is less comment than people believe, as
indicated by the 59K Google hits for "8-bit ASCII".
> Most recent formats and pr
Leonardo Valeri Manera scripsit:
> Why is silex GPL-2 now?
The code does not contain any license at all, and the manual only says that
the author hopes it will be helpful for many Scheme programmers. So this
egg is "use at your own risk".
Someone should contact the author.
--
By Elbereth and
Why is silex GPL-2 now?
This screws it up for everyone making non-GPL-2 stuff that uses
easyffi or one of the many eggs that depend on it...
*slitwrist
Leo
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listin
John Cowan wrote:
If we all lived in a UTF-8/LF world exclusively, then that would be
fine. As it is, many of us are not in that world at all, and few of
us are in it exclusively. So in practice it is necessary to convert
between internal and external encodings anyhow, which involves
copy
Tobia Conforto scripsit:
> This discussion has convinced me that from a *practical* point of
> view, it makes a lot of sense to use the same underlying object for
> both kinds of operation, instead of copying over the contents every
> time you want to switch between the two views (as I suppo
Hi folks,
Last night I worked on a submission for the 'ring' benchmark in the Shootout:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/sandbox/benchmark.php?test=threadring&lang=all
After a couple different approaches, the one that worked best by far
was to use the 'mailbox' egg, which we cannot do in the Sh
John Cowan wrote:
The difference between restricted and unrestricted strings may not
be as large as the distinction between pairs and fixnums, but it's
the same *kind* of difference.
I beg to differ.
A pair is no fixnum, and vice-versa. They're two disjoint domains.
On the other hand, an
> "Graham" == Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Graham> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> It wouldn't solve the data-punning problem. As long
>> as the same object can be seen one way by one module
>> and another way by anothe
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
> Just curious, whence the 'restricted' terminology? I would have
> thought 'utf8 and raw/byte strings' since that's the practical
> implication.
Restricted strings are restricted to holding characters between #\x0
and #\xFF. Unrestricted strings can hold any character b
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It wouldn't solve the data-punning problem. As long as the same object
> can be seen one way by one module and another way by another, problems
> will continue to be endemic. To fix that, we need two run-time types,
> w
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> Why do we need this? That's not rhetorical, I'd like to
> hear of any use cases where you think a problem could arise.
We need it because Scheme is a strongly (dynamically) typed language.
If FOO passes BAR a pair, and BAR is expecting an exact integer, the
programmer exp
On Mar 18, 2008, at 8:46 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Kon Lovett scripsit:
In my usage "byte-string" means "octet-string". See the "levenshtein"
egg. I mean a "blob".
I'd call that a byte vector.
"blob" is incorrect in the "levenshtein" egg context. However, not
incorrect in a previous post.
> "John" == John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> felix winkelmann scripsit:
>> A real module system would solve all these problems
>> cleanly.
John> It wouldn't solve the data-punning problem. As
John> long as the same object can be seen one way by one
John> m
felix winkelmann scripsit:
> A real module system would solve all these problems cleanly.
It wouldn't solve the data-punning problem. As long as the same object
can be seen one way by one module and another way by another, problems
will continue to be endemic. To fix that, we need two run-time
Tobia Conforto scripsit:
> So they're ditching {"byte", u"unicode"} strings in favor of {b"byte",
> "unicode"} ones? What are they ditching exactly? It seems to me
> they're just switching the default.
Maybe so, but the word "just" is probably not appropriate, as switching
defaults has a hu
Kon Lovett scripsit:
> In my usage "byte-string" means "octet-string". See the "levenshtein"
> egg. I mean a "blob".
I'd call that a byte vector. The issue is, when you get a component,
what comes out, a character or an exact integer?
--
Work hard, John C
On Mar 18, 2008, at 7:01 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
So, a byte string would simply be a string with a null auxilliary
vector.
That doesn't work. A byte-string is not a sequence of characters from
the ASCII repertoire, it's a sequence of characters from the
repertoire
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Alex Shinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's just changing the procedures used to access strings.
> Changing the fundamental string representation is a more
> substantial change by an order of magnitude, involving
> changes to the core compiler and the FFI
John Cowan wrote:
Tobia Conforto scripsit:
This is more or less how other languages, such as Python, solved
the issue. Two kinds of strings, byte and unicode, and
overloading a few string operations to have a slightly different
meaning when called on either, computing byte length vs. cha
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM, John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Fawcett scripsit:
>
> > So, a byte string would simply be a string with a null auxilliary vector.
>
> That doesn't work. A byte-string is not a sequence of characters from
> the ASCII repertoire, it's a sequence of
Tobia Conforto scripsit:
> This is more or less how other languages, such as Python, solved the
> issue. Two kinds of strings, byte and unicode, and overloading a few
> string operations to have a slightly different meaning when called on
> either, computing byte length vs. character length
Graham Fawcett scripsit:
> So, a byte string would simply be a string with a null auxilliary vector.
That doesn't work. A byte-string is not a sequence of characters from
the ASCII repertoire, it's a sequence of characters from the repertoire
{ASCII set, characters numbered 129 through 255 with
On 18/03/2008, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I also think that GMP should be in the core, and
> that no one, nowhere should be allowed to publish an egg with a
> toplevel procedure named (format) in it. Mysterious toplevel
> interactions between indirect depen
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Alex Shinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Tobia" == Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Tobia> Graham Fawcett wrote:
> >> Here's another thought. It seems to me that if we
> >> were to represent strings as composite values, e.g. a
>
The entire problem revolves around adding Unicode support as
an option, without modifying the core. *If* we allow
ourselves to modify the core, then there is no problem at
all, and we can just copy the utf8 egg code over the
existing string procedures, and add in some procedures for
byte-level ac
> "Peter" == Peter Bex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:08AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
>> > "Kon" == Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> writes:
>>
Kon> Summary: I want a byte-string API. I want string
Kon> integrations. I want global U
On 18 Mar 2008, at 2:29 am, Alex Shinn wrote:
The problems we're having aren't even about string
representation though, they're about the semantics of the
string operations themselves. Are the string indices byte
positions or character positions? Different libraries
disagree.
IMHO Java doe
> "Tobia" == Tobia Conforto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tobia> Graham Fawcett wrote:
>> Here's another thought. It seems to me that if we
>> were to represent strings as composite values, e.g. a
>> two-slot record whose first slot is an encoding (the
>> symbol 'utf8, or #f
Am Dienstag, den 18.03.2008, 09:38 +0100 schrieb Peter Bex:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:08AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > > "Kon" == Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Kon> Summary: I want a byte-string API. I want string
> > Kon> integrations. I want global UTF8 strin
Graham Fawcett wrote:
Here's another thought. It seems to me that if we were to represent
strings as composite values, e.g. a two-slot record whose first slot
is an encoding (the symbol 'utf8, or #f for 'byte' encoding), and
whose second slot contains the string data, then the various string
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:41:08AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > "Kon" == Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kon> Summary: I want a byte-string API. I want string
> Kon> integrations. I want global UTF8 strings.
>
> The only way this can happen is to push the UTF8 handling
> in
Hi!
Attached is a patch against the chicken trunk that adds
a rewrite hook for literals in program code. It's used like this:
% cat fix.scm
(set! ##compiler#literal-rewrite-hook
(lambda (x w)
`(,(w 'fix-strings) ',x)))
% cat ftest.scm
(use srfi-13)
(define (fix-strings x)
(let walk ((x x
39 matches
Mail list logo
