[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comparison with Forth equivalent

> 1.  current-locale:
> ------------------
> Instead of returning a list, Forth provides two words get-language and 
> get-country.  These deal with the ISO codes (e.g. en, de, us, ie), 
> apparently in the equivalent of symbol form (words).
> Note that set-language and set-country are provided also.  Arguably, 
> this is nice for symmetry, but I think it's better to leave locale 
> selection up to the user (e.g. using environment variables).

I think this is reasonable.

> *  I'm worried about performance and/or fitting in with the host OS.  I 
> know almost all software runs "fast enough", but XPG4 implementations 
> can go to some lengths (on-disk hashes mmapped into RAM) for speed.  I 
> would guess that this isn't for nothing.
> Even if nobody does, I'd like to allow implementors the latitude to do 
> something like this, or better, just interface to the system libraries 
> with an FFI.  So I'd suggest defining declare-bundle as a sublanguage, 
> somewhat like SRFI-7.  The sample implementation could remain the same 
> and you could just load these files, but at least people would then be 
> able to use a different scheme, say generating a message catalogue from 
> the source.

I agree wrt giving implementers enough lattitude to 'make it fast'.  If
this could be done relatively simply, and still allow bundles to be
created portably, then great.  I don't think the current SRFI is very 
far from that.


Attachment: pgpn1oKg1YhXr.pgp
Description: PGP signature